Hi Atama: You might recall that you told Mrm7171 the following.
"But I'll give you a chance, probably one more chance than you merit at this point, but I'll offer it anyway. Would you agree to leave these editors alone? To stop undoing their edits, removing their references, bringing them up on noticeboards, challenging them on user and article talk pages? Will you do something useful for the encyclopedia? -- Atama頭15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
Mrm7171 is not exactly following your advice to leave me alone. They undid a change I made on a couple of pages, e.g., the musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) page,[1] then I deleted with an explantion of why,[2] and they deleted again [3], and now I'm getting caught up in an argument about whether or not I/O psychology is relevant to MSDs.[4]. I'd be thankful for your thoughts on this. Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atama. I have edited a number of important articles today, and continued to be useful to the encyclopedia. I have stayed away from psyc12 in doing so. I have not removed their edits (and rarely do) or brought them up on noticeboards. I have also not revisited any of the occupational health psychology articles as agreed. Work psychology was added to the muscoskeletal disorder article 2 weeks ago and rightly so. Psyc12 then deleted its inclusion. Today I engaged in what can only be seen as civil discussion with psyc12. Psyc12 asked for a reliable source. I provided one. They then report me here to you? Please see Talk:Musculoskeletal disorder
I also did not revert again today, even though psyc12 again deleted my good faith edit, so not to edit war, and we could just work it out. Work and organizational psychology is a major part of psychology internationally. I am in no way, hounding psyc12 either, and resent the insinuation, but it appears psyc12 just wants readers to believe occupational health psychology is the only area of psychology to muscoskeletal disorders in the workplace? It is not. And readers deserve the best, most neutral encyclopedic articles possible. Perhaps psyc12 could instead just work with me on the odd articles where there is some overlap, in the name of civil editing? Why can't we include both work psychology and occupational health psychology?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you wrote to psyc12 regarding hypocrisy, and I think is more than relevant here. It is the only issue it seems that psyc12 is still complaining to you about, instead of just working it out, and moving on? Please see: [5]Mrm7171 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try a compromise here. I'm going to step in as a non-administrator here. As a regular reader and editor, I'm confused as to why OHP should be linked to, but not I/O. It seems to me that neither is directly related to musculoskeletal disorders, because neither field is involved in treating physical injuries. However, both fields are involved with managing occupational stress (in fact, each article has a section on it) and because occupational stress is a factor in people suffering from musculoskeletal disorders at the workplace, both articles are tangentially related.
@Psyc12: Please help me understand how OHP is more relevant and deserves inclusion while the other doesn't. @Mrm7171: While I'm not an expert in any way, I can still intervene using common sense and through an attempt to receive consensus so that there doesn't need to be the added distraction of your participation in the discussion (for now). That way you don't have to interact with Psyc12. -- Atama頭15:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama: OHP is a field concerned specifically with workplace health and safety, and so it is more relevant to topics having to do with physical health than is I/O, which is more concerned with psychological well-being. I can provide more explanation, but maybe it is best to use references. As I put on the talk page, I checked an I/O psychology handbook, and 7 textbooks and none mentioned MSDs in the index. An I/O encyclopedia did not have an entry.[6] So numerous authors/scholars in the field do not consider it important enough to mention. By contrast, the Campbell and Quick OHP Handbook has an entire chapter on MSDs, and it is mentioned in other chapters too. The OHP chapter in Coreil's Social and Behavioral Foundations of Public Health says the following "This chapter will discuss five OHP issues that affect the health, safety, and well-being of employees", Number 2 is "Musculoskeletal disorders that are caused, as least in part, by carrying out job tasks" (p. 401). Psyc12 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet industrial and organizational psychology states in the lead that it is concerned with workplace health and safety as well. It also discusses musculoskeletal disorders ("For instance, researchers at the institute of work psychology (IWP) examined the mediating role of psychological strain in relation to musculoskeletal disorders"), and references it with a link to the Journal of Applied Psychology. You might be able to argue that OHP is more relevant, but to exclude I/O you'd have to demonstrate that it isn't relevant at all (rather than less relevant). -- Atama頭22:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acting as a mediator here Atama and providing some common sense reasoning and sound knowledge of Wikipedia policy. This kind of neutral third party involvement, in the occupational health psychology article would have helped immensely, in hindsight. As already noted, occupational stress has been shown as one cause of muscoskeletal disorders. Both areas are concerned with occupational stress. Both articles should therefore be included in the see also section, for the benefit of the reader. A side point is that many of the researchers who have identified this link between MSDs hold Doctorates in I/O psychology and/or are occupational/organizational psychologists. Much of this research has also come from the IWP, as you correctly noted Atama. The IWP is "home to one of the largest groups of occupational psychology academics in Europe" please see: https://www.postgraduatestudentships.co.uk/department/university-sheffield/institute-work-psychology. Although not even applicable in this case, psyc12's argument that OHP is more relevant than work psychology, to MSD's is simply not true.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama:. I already showed above that MSDs are not a topic within I/O at all--not one mention, and so that makes it not relevant at all. I don't understand how the existence of this article informs whether MSDs are relevant to I/O. The article doesn't say that it is an I/O article or that the study of MSDs is relevant to I/O. It is just an article about psychological factors in MSDs. The only reason it is mentioned in the I/O article is because yesterday Mrm7171 put it there. I do not think it belongs because MSDs are not even a minor topic in the field, as noted above. Psyc12 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama: If you go to the website for IWO you will see their mission/purpose, and it has nothing to do with MSDs, and they don't mention physical health either. What they describe is what is described in many places as the domain of I/O.[ http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/management/research/iwp/about] Here's two quotes from their site.
"to evaluate and implement programs that aim to improve team performance, employee engagement and wellbeing, and leadership." "Illustrative issues we have addressed include creativity training, idea capture schemes, empowerment, employee engagement, organisational change, leadership, management support, team-working, bullying and violence, employee wellbeing and small business needs."
Apologies. Did not know this discussion was still continuing after your last comment Atama. I'm also not sure if I'm able to contribute here, or why it would even be necessary to further this discussion. I could easily refute psyc12's points above, but with all due respect, I think psyc12's comments are missing the point, regarding this whole discussion relating to the 'see also' section of that article.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrm7171: Yeah, your edit re-started the edit war that went dormant when discussion started, so it was definitely not a good one Mrm7171. My suggestion, as a good faith gesture, is to self-revert to show that you didn't mean to circumvent discussion that way.
So the I/O page didn't say anything about MSDs until a day ago when you changed the article to justify adding I/O it to the "see also" section of the MSD article? -- Atama頭01:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama: Undid inclusion as a good faith gesture. Regarding addition of reliable source, yes, the reliable source was added to article 2 days ago? Not to justify addition though. It was because psyc12 demanded a reliable source, so I gave him one and then also included it in article? There are other reliable sources too. But does it matter to this point under discussion? The reliable source added is sound, and fits in well with both occupational stress and occupational health and safety, both topics in the article. Definition in lede of article is long term. Your common sense reasoning and application of policy, already outlined above Atama, is also sound. Work and organizational psychology is relevant to MSDs, as much as occupational health psychology, if not more so! Work & organizational psychologists are increasingly concerned with the physical and mental health outcomes of occupational stress, particularly throughout Europe. A further justification for its relevance is the strong relationship between human factors and ergonomics and occupational psychology. Also, many of the researchers who identified this link between MSDs hold Doctorates in I/O psychology and/or are occupational/organizational psychologists. I fail to see why or how occupational health psychology would be included and then to restrict the inclusion of work psychology also?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I also added occupational medicine and occupational hygiene 2 weeks ago when I added organizational psychology to that article's see also section, for the benefit of the reader. They too are relevant. We need to remember it is the link between occupational stress as one cause of MSDs, that we are talking about here. Helping organizations reduce work stress in turn will reduce MSD's. That is the relevance to work psychology and occupational health psychology, for that matter!Mrm7171 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly Atama. Here is a 2013 case study titled OP (occupational psychology) in practice. It can be cited within a definitive source titled work and occupational psychology: integrating theory & practice on page 241. I thought it was an interesting example of exactly how occupational psychology is relevant to MSDs through interventions for work related stress. books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1446260704 I could provide so much more evidence supporting work psychology's relevance to MSD's, but is it really needed? I am also amazed as to the veracity of opposition to its simple inclusion in the see also section, alongside many other articles, and the insistence by psyc12 that only the OHP article be included for readers?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama: I did a Web of Science Search for MSDs. Since 1968 they list 451 papers; 39 in the category of applied psychology. Of those 2 are in an I/O-related journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, that is a general applied psychology (not just I/O) journal.[9] One was the Sprigg paper Mrm referenced. The other is a paper by Gary Evans[10] who is not an I/O psychologist (environmental and developmental). This journal has published 9,191 papers in its history, 2 are on MSD, and only one of those is by people associated with the I/O field. As for the case above, from what is described, it is about stress, not MSD. By the way, I am not arguing that OHP should stay on the list. I was asked to explain why it is more relevant. Psyc12 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been giving this a lot of thought. I've also been looking over the musculoskeletal disorder article. And something disturbing occurred to me, once I got out of the myopic focus on the propriety of various inclusions in the "see also" section.
So, a MSD is a health issue, it's where you have pain in joints, ligaments, tendons, muscles, and nerves. It's much like other injuries, like having a bone fracture or concussion or a bruise. Generally, Wikipedia articles related to health problems are meant to inform the reader about the health problem... Symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc. When I look at the MSD article, however, I see that only about 10% of the article (literally 2 sentences in the lead!) is devoted to the actual disorder itself. The rest of the article is devoted to its prevalence among workers, its impact on worker productivity and morale, and so on. All external links are to occupational health sites, and all references are related to occupational issues. While the two of you are in a prolonged conflict, you both obviously come from a background of occupational health (physical and/or mental). I looked at the original author of the article, and that person's editing history shows a similar focus.
This is a problem to me. This is not an article about musculoskeletal disorder. This is a coatrack article about occupational/industrial health. It doesn't resemble any of Wikipedia's legitimate health-related articles, either in structure or content. And I think the problem is because of who has created and expanded the article. This is like an article written about chewing gum written by people in the paper and plastics industries, who devote 90% of the article to what kind of wrapper the gum comes in, and who are fighting over whether or not waxed paper should be given undue weight over alternate wrappers (like foil). This article is inherently flawed due to the perspective of everyone who has been involved with it. It wasn't written in poor faith, it wasn't developed by people with an insidious agenda, but it has suffered because it was developed by people with a very narrow focus who lose sight of what is important in the article, and give undue weight to issues that are within their own interests and expertise but in such a way that it's a disservice to the readers.
Unfortunately, I'm at a loss as to how to repair the article. I'm a crappy content developer, I'm always open about that. It's a big flaw of mine, that I can see flaws and problems in articles easily but I don't have the kind of mindset that fixes them very well. The only thing I can think of is to reach out to some place like WikiProject Medicine so that people who actually do have such skills can give advice or intervene. But there needs to be a fresh perspective on this article, and I don't doubt that there are others in the same state. -- Atama頭16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama: I think your comments are spot on. MSD's don't just occur in the workplace either, and this article is simply about MSD. I think the issue is that it is weighted too much toward occupational health and causation, rather than general health and a focus on what an MSD actually is? I think inclusion of other research would improve the article giving it some balance. We should also call a 'spade a spade,' and refer to 'stress as stress' rather than dress it up. But that's just my opinion. To resolve this issue over the 'see also' section perhaps we could include both (as they are both relevant to work stress and its effect on MSD's) or neither. But to exclude one article and not the other is not fair? I'm fine with both options, quite frankly, to resolve it and move on from what appears to me to be a very minor issue, given other problems with this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The epidemiologic literature links MSDs more closely to working conditions that involve repetitive motion, lifting heavy loads, etc. This is not to say that sometimes individuals have such experiences outside of work (there may be research on this topic). But work is source of biomechanical problems because what one does at work is not voluntary. Sanitation workers must engage in lifting. Typists much type.
I think that what the article on MSDs needs most, however, is coverage of evidence-based treatments of MSDs. I think Wikipedia users would appreciate that. Iss246 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my problem is that after reading the article I only have the vaguest idea of what an MSD is. The disorder itself isn't described in any detail outside of the lead, and even there literally 2 sentences are devoted to it. I understand devoting space to talking about the impact of the disorder on the workplace, but right now the vast majority of the article is devoted to it. That info should be in one section of the article (which could be further divided into subsections, of course) and could be mentioned in the lead but should not take up the majority or even half of the lead. That's my opinion at least. Treatment of MSDs is fine, that's the kind of info that most of these articles have and it would be an improvement. -- Atama頭15:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama:The musculoskeletal disorder article has been restructured to put more emphasis on the disorder and less on the workplace. General content has been added, but there is more left to do on the nature of the disorder, causes, and intervention/treatment. Thanks for your input. Psyc12 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama:I have left the editing mostly to psyc12. However I just tried making, what I thought was a reasonable and sensible edit. It was quickly reverted by psyc12. Rather than me interact further at this stage, and be dragged into a protracted discussion, could you have a look please Atama at my reasoning on the talk page. Talk:Musculoskeletal disorder I really don't see why we need to focus so heavily on work related psych hazards and then psyc12 insisting on breaking it down into specific work related hazards like workload etc makes no sense to me, and does no justice to this article, in my opinion?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the mess is continuing in a different arena. Just after the previous AN/I discussion was archived, Mrm7171 went to Elton Mayo where we seem to see a recreation of the problems between Mrm7171, Psych12 and Iss246 that we've seen with previous articles. I don't know who is in the right in terms of the article, but the same general issues we saw on the previous articles seem to be recreating themselves there. At this stage I don't know if we should just write this off as editors with similar interests running into each other, or if it should instead warrant additional steps, but it is at least worth a heads up. - Bilby (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We have a complicated set of problems, in which bad behaviour plays its part. I feel that the underlying problem is based on the conceptual similarity of the mental universes of all three main participants. All are setting (slightly different) hard boundaries to concepts that (in my mental universe at least) are fluid and that overlap. (And whose details aren't of major personal importance to me, nor I suspect to most readers of an encyclopedia.) Both the concepts and their boundaries then become the subject of intractable wrangles. Thus we have had the issue of whether OHP is "really" a full sub-discipline of psychology, of whether OHP existed before the term was published, and endless issues about claiming various domains for various psychological "sub-disciplines". We also have poor use of writing skills. The results at best are coatrack articles full of lists, without a coherent story (though still not without value). Unfortunately, sorting this multiple-article mess will take more than a single wikignome with good intentions. As things are, any such gnome would need to have access to a fairly wide variety of printed sources (which I, for example, don't) and would need to have plenty of time to rewrite articles free from wrangles (which doesn't seem to be on offer). As the three editors concerned appear to be professional psychologists, we can hope that they will find some way of breaking out of this unfortunate pattern of behaviour, helping each other to write really good encyclopedic articles without having to insert multiple claims about professional boundaries, before some admin decides that the mop is really required. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I came close at one point to blocking Mrm7171 because it was demonstrated that he was following the other two editors and opposing them at various articles, and dragging them to multiple noticeboards in an attempt to get them either blocked or topic-banned (mostly due to COI reasons, glossing over his own of course). This led to a 2 week block in the midst of a discussion on ANI where a number of people were suggesting an indefinite block. He came off the block doing practically the same behavior. When I dug into the background and found this pattern, I threatened an indefinite block, at which point he seemed to back down the accusations and act a bit more cooperative. But while that seemed to cool things off a bit (enough that I had hope that they might be able to collaborate constructively) it never resolved the issue. I'm a bit worried about all of the editors. They're knowledgeable professionals, but tend to be pretty myopic (they're all SPAs to one degree or another) and just as Richard said this leads to coatrack articles. Anything they write about is either about OHP (Psyc12 and Iss246) or I/O (Mrm7171). If an article is tangentially-related to either discipline or issues covered by the discipline, it gets skewed to focus on whatever the editor's particular discipline concerns itself with. I think regardless of any interpersonal conflicts between these editors, there is a larger problem with their good faith but misguided contributions. -- Atama頭15:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
regarding powerwave technologies
hi
I used to work for Powerwave earlier. Powerwave is now shut down. There is no company webpage. The wikipedia page was the only sensible thing (though it had flaws). I was really saddened and quite shocked to see that the article has been removed from Wikipedia. Now there is no trace of what the company was. There is no website nor any wiki article. For many former employees like me, the wikipedia article was the only sensible remaining page to the company which we had worked for.
This especially pains me since I contributed my bit (in $$) to Wikipedia just a few months back.
@Paragdighe: I can restore the article, because it was deleted through a process that requires no controversy, and anyone expressing an objection to the article's deletion can either prevent the deletion from occurring, or have it restored after it was deleted. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial where we seek to honor individuals and organizations that have passed on. The article failed to demonstrate how the was notable enough to merit an article, and when I searched for coverage in reliable sources to show such notability I was unable to find any, which is why I deleted the article. So the article may still be deleted after I restore it, in fact it is likely that it will be, and the article would not be able to be restored after a simple request. -- Atama頭16:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked Johnny Rambo, it's pretty blatant, but I'll see if CU is interested in looking for other accounts. -- Atama頭20:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the last straw. This editor has gone over the deep end since the last time I looked at their contributions. I've blocked them indefinitely. This person is engaged in the kind of behavior that has brought a bad name to Wikipedia, in defaming article subjects. -- Atama頭14:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wouldn't have been here if the issue was mere edit conflict. The issue is deeper than that as those users are teaming up to remove even tags that show the existence of a conflict dispute.[12][13] I implore you to de-archive the ANI, I would even encourage you as an uninvolved editor to take a look and assess the discussion at the talk page.--Kathovotalk11:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathovo: I'm not going to de-archive your thread. ANI is for administrator requests; when behavioral problems require administrative intervention, or when there is some other kind of problem that requires administrator assistance. The issue you're having is a content dispute, and some issues you have might be settled better by WP:POVN (you suggest that stating that "Soviet annexation being illegal" is an NPOV violation) or perhaps WP:RSN (people dispute some of the sources you're using for your argument).
As for the tag... There's no black and white answer to that. A POV tag is supposed to indicate that there is a dispute. But that raises the question of when it's appropriate to remove the tag. I could step in as an administrator and state that if one person thinks there's a problem, against four other editors, then the tag must stay until that one person is satisfied. I don't think that I'm comfortable making that call, because in theory you could dispute it forever and it would permanently stain the article. As it is, you've had a discussion going for roughly a week now, and the consensus seems to overwhelmingly suggest that your wanted changes aren't supported by anyone.
I understand that you feel that you're being tag-teamed. Maybe there is a cabal of editors who want to maintain the status quo (functionally violating WP:OWN). But without taking sides, I can say at the very least that the objections that they've made to your suggestions haven't been empty "we don't like it" sorts of objections, there are reasonable arguments in there. I think that accusing you of soapboxing is a bit of a hyperbole, but otherwise I don't see anything that's out of line in that discussion. Your problem isn't the lack of a POV template on the article page (that doesn't seem to be a fight worth spending effort on), it's a lack of support from anyone. ANI isn't the place to find that support. An RfC should hopefully bring in others, but if it doesn't, it doesn't. Have you tried asking for fresh input from WikiProjects? A neutrally-worded request for other opinions isn't a bad idea. If you feel really stuck there is also WP:DRN (which is probably what you should have used rather than ANI). But being unable to gather support from others and losing an argument is something that happens to everyone. Even for me, I was in a recent discussion at Talk:Yelp, Inc. where I felt like the prevailing opinion (keeping things in a "controversy" section) went against our neutrality guidelines, was bad article construction, and didn't make sense in context of the article. But most people disagreed. I think that others made a mistake, but I had to move on. It happens. I'm not saying that you have to move on at this point, but there may be a point where you'll have to. It's how things are in a place like Wikipedia where everything is settled by consensus. -- Atama頭17:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, I have seen quite a few RfCs about dedicated Controversy sections and their outcome is very predictable. It's possible the unusual outcome is merely the result of defensiveness regarding my COI, which often skews an editor's perspective. The much more paranoid explanation might be that a certain banned user that often uses IP addresses like this one, has been known to use established accounts for socking, and has been trolling me on Wikipediaocracy might be responsible. However, this is why discussions are closed based on the strength of the arguments rather than voting, so users don't have to entertain such paranoia regarding whether the discussion has been tainted. If the discussion does get a formal close, I'm not convinced consensus would be weighed in the same direction as the votes. Anyways, I'd be happy to take a look at the discussion noted above. CorporateM (Talk) 01:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, it is difficult to weigh the arguments because the discussion is all over the place. We do need neutral editors to be more persistent than POV pushers, but it is sometimes difficult to tell who is which. The extreme non-neutral wording of the RfC and other elements of the discussion give me the impression of a testosterone fueled "fight to the last stand" mentality. It bears reminding that we are all colleagues working together. I am somewhat lenient towards saying Atama's advice of leaving it be and editing somewhere else may be sound, but it is hard to say without being able to better assess which party is correct, given how fragmented the discussion is. CorporateM (Talk) 17:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh actually on a pure vote-count on the Yelp page is almost tied. Weird for some reason I thought it was strongly in favor of "as-is". CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet
Hi ... perhaps you could take a glance at some apparent sockpuppetry? You indicated in the past that you did not think sockpuppetry was afoot, and perhaps that will be your surmise again, but similar behavior has just surfaced with a new user. This relates to Indiggo, an article you have looked at in the past. The user's edits are here, and the article is at AfD. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: I do remember that incident, and I'll definitely look into this new account. I'll compare it behaviorally against the previous accounts active at that article and see what I find. Thank you for letting me know. -- Atama頭04:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: So I've taken the time to look over the contributions of both Dany4444 and DavidLeib. I see some striking behavioral similarities that lead me to believe that they are the same person. Their edit summary usage is similar, and if you compare the message left on your talk page with the message left on Ian's talk page they are very similar. Both editors make frequent use of exclamation points in edit summaries, both insist that Piers Morgan is a racist, both repeatedly ask people to stop reverting them and take it personally each time. It's enough for me to call this per WP:DUCK. I don't believe that they are the same person as Indiggo77 who seemed to communicate a bit more aggressively and who used edit summaries differently (when they did so, which was not often). I also don't see any other editors in the history of that article that seem to match.
I feel confident in saying that Dany4444=DavidLeib, but what does that mean? DavidLeib last edited on March 4. Dany4444 wasn't created until April 5, over a month later. There is no overlap between the two. DavidLeib, despite receiving frequent warnings for disruption (mostly for edit-warring) has a clean block log. If DavidLeib abandoned the old account and created a new one, there is no violation of anything at WP:SOCK. Not until and unless the DavidLeib account edits again could it be argued that an editor is maintaining two accounts simultaneously. The only negative consequence of two people using the two accounts is that we can treat them as one person performing all of those actions, so the warnings from DavidLeib should be considered to be in Dany4444's history. Any evaluation of Dany4444 for a pattern of disruption should take into account the actions of both accounts. That means that Dany4444 is about one more incident away from at least a short block. They seem to have taken an editing break for the last couple of days, if they come back and start disrupting again then myself or someone else should block them. If you see any behavior like that and nobody else responds feel free to let me know. -- Atama頭15:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had been thinking about you, but didn't want to trouble you. Thanks you for keeping this on your radar, performing exhaustive research, and sharing your incisive analysis and suggestions. Best.Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, let me add one point. This editor has maintained that he has never edited Wikipedia before. Per your investigation, this appears to be an attempt to deceive or mislead other editors, and distort the appearance of consensus. And WP:SOCK states that: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry ... Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors ... distort consensus ... or otherwise violate community standards and policies." Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the editor for 24 hours just to get the point across that they are being disruptive and that they need to discuss matters on the talk page. I basically blocked him as I would a first offense for edit-warring, although the actual block justification is a bit more complicated than that. I left a message on their talk page explaining that I know that they had a previous account, and warned them about what would happen if they chose to use the account again (especially to evade the block I enacted). I'm probably being a bit too lenient, but it's somewhat in the spirit of WP:ROPE. We'll see what happens from here. -- Atama頭20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you don't mind, since you are looking at the page, can you glance at the latest? This comes from the other side. The editor you blocked has, as you know, spent time deleting everything that might be negative about Indiggo. But now there is an edit war by an editor who at the Indiggo AfD, etc., has been strongly antagonistic to Indiggo (e.g., the only delete !voter at their current AfD). Final warning had been given, but reverts have continued. Seehere and here and here.Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And this is all over whether or not the members of Indiggo are American? Sigh... Well, so far I've tried to stay uninvolved with the article itself (I commented on this latest AfD but only on the use of a source, not whether or not the article was worth keeping). I think I'd rather stay uninvolved. So I won't weigh in on the validity of either side. But the edit-warring about that is not good. I've left a message on the talk page, and I have to go by what's at WP:BLPSOURCES. -- Atama頭21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have to come here again. Since User:Dany4444 was blocked indef, we have had a series of edits to the Indiggo article by SPAs, either IP or newly formed, deleting the same material Dany deleted, and without explanation. What's the best way forward? Can you perhaps protect the article? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: I saw the edit by TroyMatthews37 yesterday. It leaped out immediately as suspicious, and I thought it could be DavidLeib/Dany4444 again. Here's the funny thing... I never blocked DavidLeib. If they want to edit with that account again, they can, but for some reason they haven't. Perhaps using sockpuppets for WP:SCRUTINY reasons? Who knows. In any case, it's difficult for me to conclude 100% that TroyMatthews37 is another sock and not just a fan (I made the connection between David and Dany partially because they communicate the same way, Troy made a single edit without a summary). But whether or not these are actually socks (both IPs are Canadian but one seems to come from Anjou and the other from Winnipeg, very far apart) they are being disruptive which is enough to justify temporary semi-protection. I'll have to look at the protection history to figure out a reasonable duration but I'll be protecting it. -- Atama頭21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided a month is appropriate. The last time protection was placed was for a couple of weeks, and it once had a one month protection back in 2009 for vandalism, so I figured a month might discourage people from shenanigans. If not it can be extended. -- Atama頭21:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: Sigh... Crap, I totally forgot that one, I'm so sorry. I think it got lost in the middle of everything else I had on my plate. Things are relatively quieter for me now, so I'll try to address it again. Thanks for reminding me.
Cool, thanks! Part of my charter with them is to do some cleanup where appropriate. Michael Luby is another one, but given his scientific pedigree, I think an AfD is less likely to succeed due to the bias' of the community. OTOH, sometime in the future I will probably be submitting one on their CEO to AfC, who I think meets the bar, because many of the media stories profile his entire background and most significant achievements. CorporateM (Talk) 14:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: Hey, do you have an on-wiki example of Anand Chandrasekher asking to delete his article? I'm thinking of taking both his article and Jim Cathey to proposed deletion (I don't think a full AfD is necessary for either one). The Cathey article looks like it would be an easy deletion, but the Chandrasekher article could squeak by WP:N potentially with the coverage he received at CNet and MacRumors (the puff piece from TG Daily isn't very impressive). If I had something that I could point to where the subject requested deletion it might make it easier to suggest deleting the article. Neither one qualifies for speedy deletion. I haven't looked at the Luby article yet. -- Atama頭16:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed my contact asking them to ask Anand to make his request directly on the article Talk page. It may take a bit as she is out of the office until Friday and there will probably be some back and forth after that, etc. etc. before we get the message directly to him. CorporateM (Talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: I proposed deletion on the Chandrasekher article, I don't see anything that merits speedy deletion (or I would have deleted it previously). If someone contests the deletion and doesn't substantially expand the article (showing notability for more than the one event) then I'll bring to AfD. In the mean time we'll see if it is deleted through PROD. -- Atama頭01:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: I also took the time to review Jim Cathey. It definitely does not seem to satisfy WP:N. The only coverage I could find for him was from Qualcomm's own web site, and LinkedIn. I found newspaper coverage of a James J. Cathey in the Las Vegas Sun but it was a different person (at least I assume so, the article was about someone killed in the Iraq War in 2005, so I think it's a safe assumption). I'm also going to propose deletion for this article (again, I can find nothing justifying speedy deletion). -- Atama頭21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are much more thorough than I. Thanks for taking a look and prodding them. There are a couple dozen or so Qualcomm-related articles and those looked like two that could easily be scratched off the list. At some point I will work on improving one or two of the others. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! That means this is a notification made redundant by the Department of Redundancy Department. I appreciate the heads-up though. -- Atama頭22:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Samima khatun's sockpuppets
Hi! A while ago you blocked a sockmaster, Samima khatun. S/he keeps creating sockpuppets, and I wondered about how to deal with the edits made by those socks: revert them, leave them as they are or revert on a case by case basis? I asked at the Help Desk and was advised to talk to the blocking admin and let them deal with it. So here I am, asking for advice or your help in dealing with the sockmaster. Sjö (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjö: Wow, I had no idea this sockmaster has been so busy over the last couple of months! There is no black-and-white answer to the question about how to handle edits made by these sockpuppets. Technically we have no policy that mandates reverting edits done by an editor evading a block (with some exceptions; !votes at RfA should always be struck, as well as comments at other particular Wiki-space areas). But a persistent sockmaster like Samima khatun is unlikely to be unblocked by an administrator, so they could be considered to have a "de facto" site ban. In which case, WP:BMB could apply. But determining whether someone is effectively banned is subjective, and in cases like this where no formal site ban has been enacted you can't be 100% certain that others will agree that the editor should be considered banned. Also, per our banning policy you aren't absolutely required to revert edits from a banned editor (that would be a stupid policy to have; if a banned editor removed vandalism or a BLP violation it would be awful if we had to put it back).
In light of that, my advice is to take these edits on a case-by-case basis. If you see an edit from one of these sockpuppets (an editor who has been blocked as a sockpuppet, not one who you suspect is a sockpuppet or who is accused or mentioned in an SPI investigation) then look at the edit on its merits. If there seems to be anything objectionable about the edit, revert it. You're unlikely to be opposed in that because the person who made the edit is blocked and can't protest. If someone else does object to your revert, you can tell them that it was a problematic edit from someone using a persistent sockpuppet to evade a block, and ask what value there is in letting the edit stay. (An editor in good standing can vouch for the usefulness of any edit from a block-evading or banned editor, but in doing so they take responsibility for the edit and if the edit is disruptive then they could face the same consequences that they would if they were the one who had originally made the edit.) Don't feel required to revert every edit without discretion, but if you disagree with an edit made by a blocked sock it's pretty safe to revert it. -- Atama頭17:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your remarks in my defense at ANI, especially as I have no stomach for it. If you'd like to find people quick to personal attack because they confuse attacks on behavior or arguments as attacks on the person, look no further than ANI. It is as if they think they have some diplomatic immunity there to behave in exactly the ways they insist are simply intolerable and must be dealt with (severely!) at once. Any non-admin unlucky enough to be hauled to ANI for any reason whatsoever can always bet on having their motives impugned (for allegedly impugning others') on evidence best described as mind-reading and to face calls to ban the person rather than focus on the behavior, especially where the behavior is merely a different opinion they don't like. It's a place where there's endless concern that someone has wasted time by pursuing whatever they consider a frivolous issue but always lots of time to pick through someone's edit history to see if there's anything else to complain about. It's simply crawling with the most angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people to be found anywhere. Anyway, thank you for your comments, especially as I really had no interest in going there. Msnicki (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was the person who originally wrote WP:BOOMERANG (though it's been edited by many others since then) so I know what you mean about diplomatic immunity (I later added a section specifically about that issue). I make an effort sometimes to keep things in perspective there, because it's undoubtedly the page with the most attention, and when issues show up there instead of getting a few helpful responses, you get a lot... -- Atama頭22:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I apologize for my reaction to this situation (apologizing to @Msnicki: for the strong rhetoric and to Atama for the time you had to spend responding to my hysterics). After sleeping on it, I realized it was a non-issue. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really dislike arguing with people that I respect, as happened on ANI (and I include you in that Spike Wilbury). But I did what I felt was right even if I disagreed with other people I'd normally agree with. I'm sure you and others were sticking up for a couple of other admins who waded into difficult, thankless tasks, and got criticized for it. I tried to acknowledge that as well even while trying to also defend the person who was criticizing them for their right to make that criticism. I hope I didn't appear ungrateful to them, I'd be a hypocrite to dismiss the efforts of people who do something I myself am loathe to do often because of how difficult and time-consuming (and often unappreciated) it is. -- Atama頭13:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a he (I self-identified in preferences, and I have a userbox on my user page stating it) but that's a common misunderstanding. I'm not sure how I like being called an "attack dog" but I appreciate the sentiment anyway, thank you. -- Atama頭23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ironheart Crown
Hi. My name is Eric Moon. I used to promote an MMA fight called the Ironheart Crown. There used to be a wikipedia page on us, but you deleted it, allegedly due to a lack of third party references. I was sad to see that the page was taken down because I was very proud of the events that we did, and it was pretty historic in the Chicago area.
Here is a third party resource that verifies most of the information that was contained in the article. If you could put it back online, I could work on getting more links to verify its content for you, and you could edit it as you see fit.
Hi there. My name is Eric Moon. I used to promote an MMA show called the Ironheart Crown. There used to be a Wikipedia page about us. You deleted it because of an alleged lack of third party references. Below is one such reference verifying much of what was contained in the article.
I was sad to see that the page was no longer available because I am very proud of the events that we did and they were historic in the Chicago area.
It would be great if you could put the article back up. I can work with you on providing more references to validate the content, and you could edit it as you see fit for content that is not verified.
@216.172.26.2: Hello Eric, I prefer not to email people I don't know but I'll reply here, hopefully you'll see this. The Ironheart Crown article was deleted via the proposed deletion process, and the article can be restored by just about anyone by request. So I will restore it for you. Usually I caution editors about the longevity of articles I restore from proposed deletions, because I don't delete articles that I feel meet our inclusion criteria, but the magazine article you linked to above shows fairly significant coverage which satisfies the complaint made in the deletion proposal. The article should have more coverage from at least another source (more than that preferably) to really consider it notable (and therefore less likely to be deleted via an articles for deletion discussion) but this is a good start. After I restore the article I'll add that link to the talk page to let people know about it.
I wanted to thank you too for disclosing your identity, when editors have close connections to the subject (whether it's for a present or past situation) it's helpful to know that. If you intend to edit the article significantly in the near future, I suggest you read our plain and simple guide to conflicts of interest, but you're definitely welcome to engage on the article talk page with other editors without objections. Minor and uncontroversial edits to the article itself (see examples here) are also generally accepted. And it's possible that if you edit the article in significant but helpful ways nobody will mind that either. But others may object so just keep it in mind. Thanks again! -- Atama頭16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Balkanian`s word
Hi Atama. As far as I can tell, Balkanian`s word was replying to Alexikoua's comment which referenced IP 95.xxx through a diff. Balkanian`s word wanted to clarify that 95.xxx was him but he had nothing to do with the Swedish IPs. 95.xxx geolocates in Albania. I support his version of events. BTW, at the time of BW's reply there was only one Swedish IP present. I added the others after BW's reply. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις00:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UnbiasedVictory
As you are aware this editor will be back with his IP's etc.. - thus I have a question. What is the best way to report these? In the past I have tracked people like User talk:UrbanNerd by simply placing the IP address used on there talk page. This was so the admins involved would see a notice an thus take care of real problems. Is this a good way of doing it - or should we just report the IP's and other shocks to his/her SPI page? -- Moxy (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: It depends on the situation. If you notice a single IP with a lot of edits, report the IP to SPI. If you notice multiple IPs in the same range making similar edits to one page, report the article to WP:RFPP to have the page semi-protected. IP sockpuppets are a particular pain because stopping them is like trying to nail tapioca pudding to a tree. -- Atama頭20:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info. On a side note I am in the middle of looking at Oglesruins(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) who is edit waring at the Mexico article. I then noticed the editor is not a native English speaker and is blanking things all over. Basically a classic case of "not here" in a few ways. Think I am going to metion him uat the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents as I dont have time to look at all the bad English edits and blanking of content done thus far. -- Moxy (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, yes, that editor is definitely a problem. They're editing promotionally, adding opinion to article space, and their grasp of English is poor (this edit for example is pretty bad). -- Atama頭22:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for review of an article with "speedy deletion" status
Hello,
I am writing in regards of an article I’ve published back in March. It concerns BEYOO ONLINE – an online reputation management company.
I’ve seen the deletion log and the subject of the proposition, which is the following: “Company with no particular notability that does not pass WP:CORP. The only reference that refers to the company is a press release. Article reads as a promotional piece.”
Currently the article is located here: speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/BEYOOONLINE.COM
As a part of another community, such as Wikipedia, I understand that there are certain guidelines to be followed. But if we are to compare the BEYOO ONLINE Wikipedia page and other online reputation management companies articles available on Wikipedia today, the BEYOO ONLINE article’s external links are being developed. This means more and more reliable external links are about to be added. Unlike the company’s biggest competitors, BEYOO ONLINE does not pay for expensive external links. The company’s articles are 100% original and unique, written by professionals in the online reputation management business field.
Considering the point of what I’ve explained above, I would like to point out another issue, which is concerning the Wikipedia philosophy in general. The BEYOO ONLINE article is an article, presenting a company to the Wikipedia community and visitors. But the company is also an organization of experts who have a lot more to share. Since the article has been putted for deletion, and here I have to admit that the deletion process has escalated to Speedy due to the fact that I haven’t seen the notifications. But again, I am reacting by adding reliable references.
The company’s experts are willing to contribute to Wikipedia with additional educational and explanatory articles in the online reputation management field. It will be much easier to contribute if they have set the basics for more educational materials, such as “Online Reputation Management in Proactive Mode” and many others in an article like the BEYOO ONLINE.com one.
I am kindly asking you to review the article again and see if it fits the Wikipedia guidelines now. If this article for some reason does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines, please point out the part where it needs editing, so it can be edited immediately. It is important to have the article back online as soon as possible.
If there is something else I can do to speed up the process and immediately improve the content, I will be more than happy to do so.
@Activeormguide: The article was actually deleted through proposed deletion, not speedy deletion. There are a few important differences. The first being that the article is not deleted "speedily"; speedy deletion can lead to an article's deletion in a matter of hours, or for more urgent reasons (such as an article that only serves to personally attack someone) a matter of minutes. A proposed deletion takes a minimum of 7 days to be deleted. Another important difference is that a proposed deletion can be invalidated by any person objecting to its deletion. So in that 7 day period, if any editor (even the article creator) objects to its deletion it cannot be deleted. You did not make an objection in those 7 days despite being notified as soon as the deletion was proposed. Finally, the last (and at the moment, most important) difference is that an article deleted through speedy deletion can be restored if a discussion at deletion review determines that the deletion rationale was invalid. An article deleted through proposed deletion can be restored simply on request. Proposed deletions are intended to be uncontroversial, and are for articles that nobody wishes to keep. That is why we give a week's grace period for objection, and why any objections halts the process (and not only halts the process but prevents any future proposed deletions at that article), and why it can be restored at any time.
So with that being said, if you want the article restored, I'll restore it. But I do so with a warning. I don't act on proposed deletions simply because an article was not objected to within the timeframe. I check whether or not the deletion rationale appears to be valid, and in particular I try to determine whether or not the subject appears to be notable. In this case the article does not seem to be notable, and the claim that the article appeared promotional was true. Looking over the article now (as an administrator I can do that), I see that the article is at least promotional in tone, even though I wouldn't delete it as an obvious advertisement per our G11 speedy deletion criterion. But it does need some substantial fixes, or the article may find itself brought to an articles for deletion discussion. In those discussions, editors weigh in and give their opinions on whether or not an article should be kept or deleted, and why (according to our policies and guidelines). Usually this is determining whether an article subject is notable enough, though there are other factors that can lead to an article's deletion. If an article is deleted through that process, it cannot be restored on request, and it can't be recreated either unless the new version of the article is substantially different from the previous article and seems to address whatever concerns arise during that discussion.
I can tell you that the article's biggest problem is notability. You need to show that the company was the subject covered by multiple reliable sources. That means it has to be more than a passing mention. Reliable sources do not include press releases, or blog posts, or something that was published by the company itself. The most common reliable sources are books and news (or magazine) articles, usually most places that have some kind of editorial oversight are considered reliable. If you cannot find such references, then the article does not meet our inclusion standards and will likely be deleted via AfD.
The promotional tone is more difficult to pin down, it tends to be a bit more subjective. But I read a lot of marketing speech in the article. Phrases like "The essence of Online Reputation Management" are not encyclopedic. In addition, the article's focus seems to highlight what the company offers customers, rather than information about the company itself. Look at other tech company articles like Google or Microsoft or Oracle Corporation for an idea about what such an article should look like. As a new article it does not have to be fleshed-out so well, or as polished, since those articles have been expanded and refined for years with contributions from (possibly) hundreds of different people collaborating on them. But I think you'll notice a dramatic difference with the way the information is presented. Those articles do not look like an "About Us" page from the company's web site.
As a person with a conflict of interest, I strongly suggest that you read our plan and simple conflict of interest guide, which has advice and information for people in your situation. In your communication with me here you've already shown yourself to be much more cooperative than many people who have a COI with the articles they create and/or contribute to, but I still think it will be of great help to you. It's written plainly, not with a lot of the technical and legalistic language that many of our guidelines and policies may have. I myself have worked with COI editors many times, I've been a volunteer at the COI noticeboard for years (before I was even an administrator) so I can also offer advice if you need help. I'll restore the article now, and give you a chance to improve it, but I suggest you work to establish notability before too long or you may find the article deleted again before you have a chance to polish it. -- Atama頭16:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCockroach: I'm not surprised on either front. Bmwz3hm has never denied a conflict of interest to my knowledge. The nature of Bmwz3hm's relationship has never been firmly established (speculating about it violates WP:OUTING) but there is certainly some sort of relationship between the two. It's a real mess, and I've been trying to be both fair and firm here. I'm tempted to block the editor again, but at the same time they've finally started contributing to the article talk page and I don't want to discourage that. -- Atama頭22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to violate the Wikipedia rule against outing, so I'm not sure how to phrase this: a person who is allegedly associated with Heleen Mees posted on her official twitter that she was going to a Hong Kong hotel but later deleted the tweet. So that person could have traveled to Hong Kong, and while there used the hotel's IP to make a new Wikipedia account used to revert/add the same content, then could have gone to a Hong Kong Apple store to use Apple's IP and also make a new Wikipedia account to revert/add the same content. In that case, this sockpuppet investigation wont end up saying its the same person due to the different locations (but not because it's not true allegedly) so what's the point of the investigation?
There was also a tweet (that I linked to at Heleen Mees' talk page) that showed meat-puppetry going on. After I posted it, the tweet was deleted. (If this comment violates the Wikipedia rule against outing, please delete/refactor it. Thank you!)--TheCockroach (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a CheckUser, so I don't know exactly what kind of information they are privy to with their tools. They keep that info secret so as not to give editors clues as to how to defeat it. I know that it's much more than an IP address. I'm fairly certain they can also get information about an editor's browser and version (because I've seen that mentioned in a CheckUser evidence discussion), and I suspect they may get ISP info, maybe even a MAC address. All of that helps them figure out if it's being done from the same computer. Someone using a home computer then flying to Shanghai and using a cyber café is going to show up as technically unrelated.
But it's worth at least checking. Any editors that are technically-related can be dealt with appropriately. Editors who aren't technically-related aren't necessarily "cleared", there is still behavioral analysis to look at. But it helps. -- Atama頭17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to make the Sant Singh Chatwal wikipedia article semi-protected or is that something only administrators can do?
There has been vandalism by IP users:
The three most recent vandalism edits above (from April 21 to 23, 2014) of the Sant Chatwal article have the same exact content of older vandalism edits. These are the older ones:
@TheCockroach: The tools to add or remove protection from a page are restricted to administrators. Requests for protection (or to remove protection) are generally made at WP:RFPP. Pages are usually semi-protected when multiple IPs and/or new accounts are causing unambiguous disruption (like vandalism or BLP violations) to an article, many acts in a short period of time (multiples per day). They can also be semi-protected if such edits are being done more slowly but over a very long period of time (though that is less common). And it has to be current. Essentially, the disruption has to be (1) at a high level and (2) very recent. Also, if there is something that is making an article temporarily higher-profile than usual (a person's recent death or a related controversy, an election, some related news event getting a lot of coverage) administrators can semi-protect for a duration that anticipates how long that extra attention may last. Full protection is normally extended to articles where there is some kind of persistent edit war involving a large number of people, and it's done as an alternative to blocking a whole bunch of people at once and forces people to stop editing the article and resolve their differences on the talk page. Full protection is typically removed once the dispute is settled and people are ready to get back to constructively editing the article. -- Atama頭13:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me in Wikipedia guidelines where it says a donation link is not allowed. How can Wikipedia expect to get donations from sponsors and not allow its editors to as well? This is hypocritical. Peteymills (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteymills: I already linked to it on the COI noticeboard, but I'll link to it again. It is at WP:ELNO. A link to a donation page is prohibited for both reasons #4 and #5; "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". In addition, WP:LINKSPAM at our spam/advertisement guideline states that "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." It explicitly includes user pages, and you're promoting donations for yourself, which is definitely prohibited under these guidelines. -- Atama頭17:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't these refer to links within articles, not user pages? I'm not promoting or selling any "products" here. I'm just giving users some information about myself and asking them to help support me in my efforts. Plus, wouldn't we expect a user page (as opposed to an article) to contain at least some "self-promotion"?
The external links guideline is mostly intended for article external links, true, though some of the prohibitions there would apply anywhere. The more relevant guideline is at our spam guideline, which applies to any project page, and the prohibited link criteria I mentioned above at the external links guideline is also prohibited there. As I pointed out before, the prohibition on spam links explicitly includes user pages. By soliciting donations you're selling your contributions in general. That is the basis of your donation request. I don't judge you personally for having such a donation page, you just can't use Wikipedia to do it.
Our userpage guideline has examples of what is acceptable on a user page. It states that, "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." You are also explicitly prohibited from "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)." You also can't include "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia." -- Atama頭17:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, on the German Wikipedia i had a link to a blog on my user page, which was denied there and subsequently added to the German Wikipedia Spamlist. I only posted the link on my user page and 2-3 times on my talk page. No notice, no warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They might be less forgiving there, each Wikipedia project (and other Wikimedia projects aside from Wikipedia) have their own communities, cultures, policies, and guidelines. What works at one project may not work at another. That's the consequence of having most of the project be established via consensus, and having different groups of people at each place. The exception is that whatever is dictated by the WMF applies to every project. -- Atama頭18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the admission of self-promotion, what about his wiki resume, errr.... his user page? WP:MFD? Template:Noindex? Just let it be? Certainly lots of other people chronicle their contribs in like fashion, though they don't usually admit to doing it to market themselves or generate offsite traffic/donations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it some thought. It doesn't really have anything objectionable on it, aside from that link to the donation page it was a pretty standard user page. The link his donation page and link to his personal web page were the only autobiographical things there, everything else was concerned with his Wikipedia contributions. The only concern I have is with the link to his personal page, he could change it to be another donation page, but given that he won't be a contributor any longer it's unlikely that he'll get many page visits. So I'm not that worried. If in the future his personal site changes, we can remove the link on his user page per WP:LINKSPAM. Until then it's actually helpful, especially as people review his contributions and his work as potential reliable sources that link provides biographical and professional information that can be used during the analysis. -- Atama頭23:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Although the Noindex template would preserve the content while helping defeat the marketing intention, by preventing the search engines from indexing his page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought about that too. If you want to add one feel free. It does reduce the page's visibility while still making it available for someone reviewing his credentials. -- Atama頭23:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NewsAndEventsGuy: So User:Despres is an individual who has been blocked for more than 3 years. I don't see what on that user page is particularly objectionable. The fact that it has sat like that for years without anyone deleting it suggests that nobody else has a problem with it either. The editor was blocked as a sockpuppet.
The User:J.K.Herms/drft_art_on_splmtoday page was a sandbox while the editor developed this article, which was deleted through proposed deletion. The first version of the article was deleted via speedy deletion as G11 (promotional) but the article based off of that draft wasn't. I don't see any need to delete it, it seems harmless sitting in user space.
The User:Henrickson#Donations section on the other hand does concern me. It's different than the donation link that Peteymills had. It seems like semantics but I think it's important. The difference is that Peteymills was asking for donations to help him out financially as he develops his career in science. Henrickson is saying that people can thank him for his edits with donations. The important distinction is that Henrickson is asking for money because of his Wikipedia work, while Peteymills was asking for money for his non-Wikipedia work. Also, I didn't block Peteymills solely for the donation link. It was also because he had declared that his purpose on Wikipedia is to collect donations and to promote his scientific work. Henrickson hasn't made such a declaration.
That doesn't mean that it's okay. We used to have a bounty board where a person could offer a reward for work that someone did on Wikipedia. Someone may offer financial compensation for bringing an article to GA status, for example. But it was shut down last year after this discussion, and also amid the growing concerns about paid editing from the community and from the WMF itself.
What I think I want to do is open a thread at WP:AN to ask other administrators their thoughts. I won't mention Henrickson, I don't want to call someone out who seems to be a productive and non-disruptive editor, but if other admins support enforcing WP:LINKSPAM to remove these donation links then I'll try to have a talk with him about removing it. He's not around very much, he did make an edit yesterday (by coincidence) but he's made less than a dozen edits all year, and doesn't seem to be editing heavily since 2008. So he may not even respond. If too much time goes by without a response I'll probably just remove it, and leave him a suggestion to contact me if he wants it put back. But we'll see what happens. I'll let you know when I have a thread put together so that you can participate if you want to.
I will say I don't plan to go on a crusade to clean up everyone's user pages. We have thousands of such pages and doing something like that would probably take up all my time, and I think that problems like sockpuppet investigations and COI disputes take precedence. If someone wants to do a "no panhandling taskforce" then that's fine. But of course I want to make sure that there's a consensus that our guidelines support such a stance, and if they don't then maybe we need to change guidelines and/or make a new one. -- Atama頭17:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... The reward board is still up. I think I was confusing it and the bounty board. The bounty board worked much the same way, except money was paid to WMF instead of to the editor making the changes. Why people wanted the bounty board shut down and wanted to keep the reward board is beyond me. It seems that paying money directly to editors would be a bigger concern about paid editing. But the discussion to delete it didn't have consensus, so it stayed around. I still think that with the growing concerns about paid editing that asking for donations would be frowned upon, but the presence of the reward board does deflate that position slightly. -- Atama頭17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it; I only did a cursory search in reply to a question at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Panhandling, out of curiousity to know how common this is. I don't plan to anything more about it, though I may revisit the issue later. Thanks for telling me about the reward/bounty boards. Those are interesting ideas, I'll have to review them later when there's time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, awesome, you already started the discussion. That's as good a place as any I guess. I'll weigh in too, thanks so much. I'm glad to see that nobody there disagrees that asking for donations on user pages is a problem. -- Atama頭19:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more severe in that I'll be blocking both Wild Wolf and this sockpuppet indefinitely. Initially, Wild Wolf was only blocked for a month to show him that using sockpuppets was not going to be tolerated and in the hope that he'd stop. But clearly he's been using a sockpuppet account for the past 4 years. I'll go to SPI with this, just so that this newest sockpuppet is on record. If another named account appears, you can feel free to either let me know or file it at SPI (or both). The great thing about SPI is that each case associated with a sockmaster like Wild Wolf gets archived to the same page so that in the future all of the history and evidence associated with each sock is collected in one place, making it easier to find other sockpuppets. -- Atama頭15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another TekkenSock
Atama, apologies for going directly to you on this, but there's another TekkenJinKazama sock that's causing trouble for a couple of other editors. Recreating articles, accusing editors of being sockpuppets, etc. The usual stuff in other words. There's plenty of evidence to make this an open and shut case but they are being a bit disruptive so I'm coming here to ask if you'd take a look and circumvent the usual SPI process as you've handled some of the previous socks. Appreciate any help! Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your post at my SPI report. It's been there a week and a half and I was wondering what was happening to it. Your comment on Alpacatracker was interesting. I only got involved in this article in a major way in the last few months: I have a list of others (that included Ellymental before the recent posting) that I suspect are from the same sock farm, but thought the right approach was to wait till they got reactivated to post an SPI. All the socks and potential socks have particular issues and approaches in common which if you spend some some time looking at them, which (sadly) I have, become quite obvious. I think it's also fairly obvious who the sockmaster must be. Looking at the history of the article since about 2006 - and once again (sadly) I've done that too - I believe that this sock farm has achieved a long-running and consistent distortion of the article. There is definitely a repeating cycle of the article being edited in a way which the sock farm wants, followed by other editors coming in and restoring NPOV etc followed by the sock farm gradually over months or years bringing it back to the way it wants. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble of taking a look at it.DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the case is on my watchlist now, and whatever the CU result (whether it shows that they're related, unrelated, or that the other sockpuppets are stale) I'll continue to pursue it. -- Atama頭20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the result: I agree I think that this tangibly connects the 2009 SPI socks with the LudoVicar group. I do think that there would be a benefit in merging the two in the archive to give the full picture when future issues arise. This is a very long-running problem - it might help others in the future piece it together more quickly instead of relying on those of us who have been involved being around to remember. I don't know how this works and who makes a call like that. DeCausa (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: That is the job of the SPI clerks, to figure out how cases are related and merge them if warranted, and to rename cases if a new sockmaster is determined. I guess I'd be called an "admin patroller" (which is really any administrator who helps out at SPI, it's not an official title or anything). So I can't make that determination. I can make a suggestion to merge cases but I'd probably need to put evidence together to convince a clerk (or even find a clerk and ask them directly), my suspicions won't be enough. At the very least, everything in an SPI case is preserved in the archive, so the links made between the two cases and left for the investigation will be present for anyone who checks the archives. I think if more old accounts get reactivated the way that Ellymental did, and are connected to that sockfarm, the stronger the case that we have identical groups of socks and the more likely the cases can be merged. -- Atama頭15:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, it looks like LudoVicar was angry enough to try to reset my password (an attempt was made by someone with the IP of 81.151.128.229 which is in the same geolocation as the other IPs). Since those password reset requests just go to my email they are harmless if I ignore them. But still funny. :) -- Atama頭16:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Humbly awarded to you in recognition of your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service.
This is the third time you attended a noticeboard case in which I am accused with a mixture of COI, sockpuppetry, paid editing, etc. – well, the accusers where always in such hurry that couldn't make up their mind as to which – but always, you dedicated a lot of time and effort to analyze and dissect the claim without showing a sign of taking sides. You amaze, inspire and scare me.
As you made the call in the earlier thread, I thought I would note that I made this comment in relation to the next reported incident because I think this whole situation sucks users into a time-sink-vortex with no productive outcome for the project. It's not specifically intended to imply that I think a block is necessarily out of order or not though; it's just I think this sort of thing will unnecessarily continue regardless of how these requests are entertained today or tomorrow or thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ncmvocalist: Yeah this literally is giving me a headache. (Not your notification to me, which I greatly appreciate, just the whole situation.) It's enough to make you feel like a tired dad on a long road trip whose kids are in the back seat poking each other and yelling. I just want to turn the car around and go back. That being said, IHTS looks to be the main instigator here, between following MaxBrowne to this page (which should be prohibited by the IBAN though I will check to be sure) as well as continuing to beat a dead horse with the "narcissist" garbage again.
I find that editors doing this are just like children exploring boundaries, trying to see what they can get away with. The best response is to show them that they can't. I'll most likely block but not without looking further, I don't intend to make an annoyed, knee-jerk block (I try to be careful with that tool). I don't agree that this sort of thing will unnecessarily continue, if one or both editors refuse to stop the behavior they'll end up indefinitely blocked and/or banned (exactly because what they're doing is wasting time and resources better spent on other things and they are a net negative to the project). -- Atama頭15:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the IBAN is the standard "don't refer to one another, interact with one another, refactor each others' comments, edit each others' user talk page" bans. It's not saying editors can't follow each other to pages. In addition, I know that IHTS is very interested in chess matters so it's not unreasonable to think that he would have gone to that page just because it's a chess issue, and all of IHTS's comments were about and toward a different editor, not MaxBrowne, so I'm not going to hold his edits on that page against him. Continuing to bring up the narcissist thing, though, that is an issue. I'll weigh in on ANI and act appropriately. Thank you again. -- Atama頭15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FWIW, IHTS may also have a point in his response to the block - that he didn't read the remainder of the earlier ANI thread after his last comment, and therefore did not see your warning not to bring the "narccisist" incident up again (as his name was not linked to alert him that you were commenting in response to him, and as it was not brought up on his user talk page specifically). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply on his talk page. When he chose to ignore the ANI thread that he was aware of, and that he'd even participated in, it was at his own peril. In any case I'm done wasting energy on him either way. -- Atama頭15:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the whole thing is unfortunate, and I thought this may happen; Iam having doubts about the usefulness of this IBAN now. I think ultimately the other issues with IHTS approach (battleground behavior) would need to be addressed if he doesn't move on following Bushranger's apology, but in the form of an IBAN with this other editor, it will just invite other types of unneeded problems between the both of them. Ultimately, the tendentiousness from him will need to stop too. Anyway irrespective of this incident, I have always been meaning to mention that when I was more active than I am now, I recall having always appreciated the work you've done as an administrator, and admired the approach you've adopted across the board (and my interaction with you here would suggest that hasn't changed); I think it does benefit the project, and would like to thank you for your continued time and efforts in this area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Mr. Admin, but editors doing this are just like children exploring boundaries, trying to see what they can get away with. and It's enough to make you feel like a tired dad on a long road trip whose kids are in the back seat poking each other and yelling. are clearly intended to refer to at least this editor (me), and FYI, comparing an editor's maturity level to the maturity level of a child or toddler is obviously personally derogatory and an ad hominem WP:PA. (Why the hell as admin don't you go educate yourself like you should have before attending your RfA and read that policy and try better to adhere to it per your responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT -- instead of flipping the bird at PA policy and issuing attacks??? Or is your idea, that it's my turn to return equal behavior directed at you, ridicule your maturity with ad hominem PA too, per WP:MUDFIGHT?! You aren't my fucking "dad" and have no moral or ethical or Wikipedia grounds to make that personally offensive and disgusting analogy.) What a conscientious admin you are, contributing to the wonderful civility found on this site. (A role model are you!) Get a clue: you can feel and think whatever you want, but you aren't free to per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:NPA say and write whatever you want. (Or did you think different, Mr. Admin?!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, grammatically, logically, and rhetorically that is NOT saying you're a child and thus is not a personal attack by any definition. Analogies do not work like that. Just like saying "it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack" is not offensive to neither needles nor haystacks. Drop the battle - in the long run you got what you wanted, even though you took the horrifically bad way to get it. Move forward. Show that you are, indeed, mature rather than try so hard to prove the opposite. the panda ₯’11:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Bullshit, Panda -- you're dancing with words. (If I wrote that you "seem like a Nazi" to me, and that you "seem to be a carbon-copy of a Nazi" to me, and so on, I'd be blocked indef per WP:NPA policy, and you know it. [Yet, "grammatically, logically, and rhetorically" I never wrote that you were a Nazi.] Give me a friggin' break.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you just said is bullshit. If I say "this reminds me of the time I tried to push a cow up a flight of stairs" I am not referring to you as a cow. If I say "this is as painful to watch as the time I stepped on a piece of pop-bottle glass", I am not referring to you as an open wound. I'm referring to my personal feeling of frustration and hard work in the first one, and my personal feeling of pain in the second. In your example above, however, you're directly calling me a Nazi, both ways. Surely your command of the English language is strong enough to recognize the difference here the panda ₯’15:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is painful to watch. IHTS: you are positively hanging yourself. Who do you think is going to support you at this rate? You are being shunned, and you blame those who are fed up. You are running through any hope of support with this little admin crusade. Take a Wikibreak. I can see one coming if you don't figure out how this usually ends. Again: painful to see this happen. Doctalk11:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So when an admin -- an admin who blocked me BTW -- gets glib in conversation and compares clearly specific editors he's just recently had issue with, to maturity level of children, you say that is just fine, admins can thumb their noses at WP:NPA if they please, and I should shut up for pointing out the PA and hypocrisy of WP:NPA -- which is and has been enforced ruthlessly upon me at the public stoning board, but admins are somehow exempt?! (Your idea of an editing climate here ain't exactly according to the precepts of Jimbo or the five pillars now, are they.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihardlythinkso: I want to offer you an apology for giving the impression that I called you a child. I didn't mean to, and looking at what I said above I don't see that I made that direct insult. But I understand why you would be sensitive to what you'd perceive as personal attacks, since you were personally attacked by another editor, and when you complained an administrator said that it was calling a spade a spade. So of course you'd be sensitive to another administrator making a personal attack against you. But I assure you that wasn't my intention. What I was trying to convey was that I felt that you were intentionally testing the boundaries of your ban by repeating that particular phrase, and I used an analogy I've used in the past where a child tries to test the boundaries of discipline through misbehavior. I'm a father in real life so it's something that comes to mind quickly. I suppose I could have used the analogy of a prisoner rattling his bars, or a man poking a stick at a bear to see if it was dead or just sleeping. I hope that gets across to you what I was trying to say.
I'll share an anecdote that might shed a bit more light on my mindset and provide more context. Many years ago I worked at an after-school program for children. I was trained in how to manage children, and taught techniques to get children to behave and listen. A couple of years later I found myself in a management position at a computer store. It was the first time having such a role, and I struggled at first to motivate my employees. But I thought back on the training I'd learned, and attempted it, and it worked! One trick in particular was to find a list of duties that needed to be done and let the employees pick which duty they wanted to do first. That gave them a feeling of empowerment, because it gave the vague impression that the tasks they performed were their own choice, even though they'd actually come from me. It was just like telling a child he had to clean his room and brush his teeth, but letting him choose which one he wanted to do first. It didn't work because my employees were like children, it was because human nature can sometimes be consistent at any age. In any case, again I did not mean to imply that you were childish, and my comment about feeling like a tired dad is because often in real life I am a tired dad, and also I was extending the metaphor I had begun earlier. I'm relating all of this to you because I do not want you to have the impression of administrators ganging up on you and insulting you with impunity. At the very least, I'm not trying to be one of those administrators. I could have simply defended my comments above as not violating WP:NPA but you've probably heard enough of that kind of talk already, and I wanted to give you the respect of a longer explanation. -- Atama頭17:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'll share an anecdote that might shed a bit more light on my mindset and provide more context. First, thanks for apology. Second, please consider never making such comments again against any editor -- your personal and professional background using or discovering a technique that worked for you on your job is really irrelevant. It's an ad hominem personal attack no matter how "cuddly" it is commonly accepted or how frequently it is used by admins (which is a lot) on the Wikipeda. (As long as you're bearing your heart let me bear mine ... This site [Wikipeida] is *nuts*, because common practice, for example dumbed-down templated thinking, is used in high frequency and has replaced thoughtfulness. [Akin to Jimbo Wales stating editors should not behave as conscription monkeys but rather thoughtful editors.] The templated thinking WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:TL;DR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE, WP:STICK and so on are used with high frequency and therefore members are duped into thinking "it makes sense and it is norm and it is OK and I-can-feel-good-about-belonging-to-and-accepted-by-a-group-by-using-it-too". Not so. But it takes an outside anthropologist perhaps to point out the King has No Clothes.) Third, about the WP:BOOMERANG essay (same shit) you are obviously and continuously so proud of, the original text (I haven't examined recent modifications) had some value because it addressed making the same trespass in the same incident. However that essay has been summarily adopted and repeatedly used as a generalized abuse-club to attack anyone with a complaint on the basis they have not been perfect in their editing histories "either" -- with users scouring edit histories outside the incident and outside the type of transgression in order to swing said club. The essay is effectively WP-endorsed justfication to dismiss a rightful complaint and abuse a rightful complainer. (There are studies that show there's nothing the human animal likes more than the chance to abuse others with authority, and the ANI cesspool puts anyone in this world who decides to post as part authority/judge/executioner -- any concept of right or wrong, or fair or unfair, is out the door of course -- because it's so fun to denegrate somebody!; so satisfying!). To continue to be proud of that essay in any way shape or form is at your own moral risk IMO. (But who gives a shit what I think?! -- anthing more than two sentences on Wikipedia is typified as an irrational "rant" or "diatribe" -- unless the person making the typification is the one writing paragraphs and more than the two or three sentences of course. They they excuse themselves with statements like "I don't generally write walls of text, but wanted to express myself clearly about this particular point" and so on and so forth to instantly exempt themselves yet reserve the right to criticize others in future for writing more than two or three sentences with WP:TL;DR and "walls-of-text". So fucking shallow.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to achieve? A forced mass apology? A desysop? A "remedial admin camp" for NPA violators? None of those things are going to happen today. But if you had to pick one of those three options, which would it be? Doctalk11:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about ... "intellectual honesty" (as opposed to gag-me-with-a-spoon-meat-cleaver-doesn't-pass-the-giggle-test-fakery-and-blatant-hypocrisy)!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Gag me with a spoon"? What is this, 1982? I haven't heard that phrase in a very long time: you are dating yourself! I don't know if "intellectual honesty" is something that can be enforced here. It hasn't worked so far! ;P Doctalk12:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atama, you've accused IHTS of hounding because of the Shogi discussion -- there are currently six threads on this talk page with shogi is the title, starting with User_talk:Ihardlythinkso#shogi_variants:_piece_values from last August. I don't see how anyone can rationally argue that's not an WP:AGF fail. To be clear, I'm not saying IHTS's behavior has been correct, nor that they're likely eventual indef will be your fault, nor (as I just explained on their talk), you've done anything malicious or worthy of sanctions (or even much further discussion). I am saying your actions and block were sloppy and didn't help the situation. I know that exercising authority well is difficult (I've done it enough it real life), but your time will be better spent taking a few extra moments when doing the admin thing: e.g. posting an explicit warning on IHTS talk page, considering more carefully why IHTS ended up in the Shogi discussion, etc. Regarding the latter, I find simple direct questions on user talk pages vastly underutilized. NE Ent13:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NE Ent: Excuse me? I've done exactly the opposite, I said that IHTS was not hounding MaxBrowne, and that it's "not unreasonable" to think that the only reason he went to that page was because it was a chess-related page; in other words, he didn't go there because of MaxBrowne. And I said as much to MaxBrowne on ANI either. I said pretty explicitly, "I'm not going to hold his edits on that page against him." Because he didn't do anything wrong at that page, not at the time I reviewed the page. Otherwise you could be sure that I would have brought it up both in his block and in the comment I left after his block. I did say initially that "following MaxBrowne" to that page may be a problem, but after looking into it I clearly said there was no IBAN violation, and that IHTS restricted their comments to and about a different editor. -- Atama頭15:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asserting you stated: [17] "That being said, IHTS looks to be the main instigator here, between following MaxBrowne to this page." If I've somehow misread the diff, I'll apologize and strike my comment. NE Ent16:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, initially when I began to look into this I thought that IHTS might have violated the IBAN by visiting a page that MaxBrowne had edited. I went back to check whether the IBAN might restrict editors from editing the same page (some IBANs do have such a provision) but I saw there was no such provision. Furthermore, IHTS was pretty good about not addressing MaxBrowne either directly or indirectly on that page. That's why my follow-up comment was to declare that there was no violation and that I felt that IHTS didn't go there just because of MaxBrowne, and did so only because of his interest in chess matters. And if I'd concluded there was stalking I would definitely have noted that both at ANI and on IHTS's user talk page. Look again at my comment at ANI where I told MaxBrowne:
"I checked to make sure that there was nothing added to the IBAN aside from the standard provisions (because some interaction bans prohibit editors from following each other to pages) but there is no such restriction here. Also, I know that IHTS is heavily-involved in chess matters, so it's not unreasonable to think that he was there only because of his involvement in chess-related matters on the project. And he refrained from commenting until a third party also commented, and restricted his interactions on that page to the other person. In that situation I don't see any violation."
So I thought I made it clear that this wasn't a stalking incident (again, I thought IHTS was only there because he edits chess articles and areas related to chess), and there was no IBAN violation; he did a very good job of restraining himself from commenting to or about MaxBrowne on that page. -- Atama頭16:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atama, I have to agree with the notion that you showed very bad judgement when you blocked IHTS -- 24 hours was far too little time. No matter, I smell an indef block coming down the pike, eventually, if he keeps up as he's going now. BMK (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I never liked you either, BMK. (I met you when you elected to insert yourself in a thread where I registered some criticism of your friend Dennis Brown. You came in to slander and insult me where you were not involved. You are not the only editor-enemy I've picked up for criticisms I've registered with Dennis. Sorry for displeasing you but I think for myself and ain't comfortable with crowd-think.) All your comments and proposals to block me (like when you recently joined Happy Attack Dog and Kevin Gorman in recommending a block) are tainted in revenge, don't kid yourself that anyone believes otherwise. You seem to have an issue with outspoken editors (like Kumioko) that are willing to back-talk to favored admins re dumbed-downedness that has polluted intellectual credibility on this site. And you feel kingly re your own precepts of decision-making to forward the interests of the encyclopedia, where consideration of editors as people be damned for the furtherance of the project. Of course there is no fallacy with your values there. Go take your snarky nastiness and frustrations out elsewhere. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"So, I'm no math genius, but it occurs to me that 2 reverts is not a violation of 3RR. Because 2 is not only not a larger number than 3, but a smaller one" ← that comment made my morning a little bit brighter; thank you! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin's Barnstar is awarded to an administrator who made a particularly difficult decision or performed a tedious, but needed admin task.
This barnstar seems to apply: "tedious" more than describes wading through a recent AN/I report and still being able to offer calm, well-tempered, and sage advice. You are to be commended and thanked for your patience and professionalism. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓00:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, question and a thank you
First I would like to thank you for the way you greeted me - it was warm and fair. As you know, I'm in quite an awkward situation (and hopefully not a pickle). I do have a few concerns and was wondering if I could reach out to you for help regarding my COI and issues that are cropping up. I truly want to make valued contributions, I really believe in the spirit of Wikipedia - and don't want to into any prolonged conflicts with anyone. But it's hard in this environment, I could use some help and advice and not sure where to turn. SAS81 (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SAS81: Ask me anything you want and I'll answer as best I can. I've kept a half and eye on the Deepak Chopra article (especially the talk page) and the COIN discussion, though there is so much text I haven't really followed it. But don't hesitate to ask questions, hopefully I'll have something useful to provide you. -- Atama頭15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Regarding this comment you made "So a section devoted specifically to criticisms of Deepak Chopra is discouraged by policy, as would a section devoted to praise, or even a section devoted to both (as it would be prone to "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents". A section called "criticism" implies that it should contain negative POV information so it should probably be avoided. "
I'm trying to find the highest wisdom here - one of the big problems I face is rather unique to Dr. Chopra in his particular field. He is a figure that is so loved and hated, most sources would reflect one or the other. He is additionally notable for being both loved and hated (a magnet for criticism). I of course believe both views should be present on the article, but this seems problematic if we do not have a section that highlights his reception as both because there is a notable 'back and forth'. This is such a critical question and I wanted to see if you could point me in any 'good articles' here that did a good job with such tricky topic or offer any other advice. SAS81 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what examples I can come up with. There are indeed certain individuals that I would call "polarizing"; for whatever reason most people have strong opinions of them, both positive and negative. I'll look in particular for any articles that have been deemed to be "good articles" or featured on our main page, which means that they've been judged to possess the highest standards we have for articles. -- Atama頭18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SAS81: Here is a suggestion: Richard Nixon. At one time he was the most powerful man in the world, as president of the US. Yet he is probably best-known for the scandal that ended his presidency. The article has our "featured" status, which puts it among the best quality articles in the entire encyclopedia (less than one tenth of one percent of articles are featured). For a similar article on someone who is still alive, you can look at Bill Clinton, which has "good article" status, not quite as good a quality as the Nixon article but still rare (less than a half a percent of all articles have GA status). Clinton is not quite as controversial as Nixon, but still somewhat controversial. Clinton may be a closer comparison since he is more popular generally than Nixon, at least public opinion is probably less overwhelmingly negative.
For a controversial figure who is not related to politics, you can look at Michael Jackson which is another featured article. Controversial pop culture icons may be better comparisons than politicians. You may also look at Richard Dawkins, though he's probably considered more "mainstream" in his views (at least to Western audiences) he does have some controversial opinions, and like Deepak Chopra he is a writer. His article has "good article" status.
I tried finding good articles for living people who advocate unorthodox science and/or medical theories, and who are popular in the way that Deepak Chopra is. I couldn't find anything above a "C" class. So I still have to recommend the articles I suggested earlier even if they're not as closely-related. I hope this is at all helpful to you. -- Atama頭21:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to give these a good study! Thank you Atama. I also have an idea, and not sure if this is a good idea or a horrible idea so I'm hoping you can give me a heads up either way. I noticed the WP:REWARDS program. It's been tough to find editors who are not involved in the subject to participate - and right now the majority of editors are highly suspicious and the one editor who came in to help is getting harassed :( - Would it be advisable to make a WP:Rewards, offer a donation to Wikipedia ($500.00) for uninvolved editors to come into the article and assist? I would not ask them to edit in my favor, just apply Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as honestly as they see it. SAS81 (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SAS81: Putting something at WP:REWARD is generally acceptable. The community is wary in general of anyone paid to edit, but that page was nominated for deletion as recently as six months ago and it survived that discussion (the bounty board however did not survive its most recent deletion discussion). You'll note in the deletion discussion for the reward board that the closing administrator stated, "If all you're asking is for someone to bring an article you're interested in up to a higher level of quality, that's not a COI issue." I think that opinion will help you out here. But I do suggest that if you want to go through with this, inform people at the article discussion page first (and/or the COI noticeboard discussion) so that nobody thinks you're doing anything on the sly.
There is a monetary reward there now to improve an article (see here) though it's offering much less than what you are. But it does show that while monetary rewards are uncommon (it's the only entry offering actual money unless you count a dogecoin as real money) they aren't unheard of. My only concern in doing this is that anyone who is recruited to improve the article is doing so in the midst of a content dispute, and while getting more participation in a dispute is usually a good thing (it's actually one of the earlier steps in dispute resolution) it does make this a different situation than most reward board requests. Usually the reward board is a place where you ask people to create an article that doesn't exist or improve an article that is getting ignored. In the usual case all you need is someone with good writing skills, information resources, and knowledge of guidelines, policies, and the manual of style. In this case you also need someone who is able to deal with personalities who may be opposed to what they're doing (not in general, but on one point or another). So that could seriously hinder your effort. But some people might appreciate that you're offering to have the article improved by a neutral editor who is not subject to your direction or influence. -- Atama頭15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atama, SAS81 has asked on my talk page for me to participate in the Deepak Chopra talk page discussion as an uninvolved editor. I have heard of Chopra but I've never read his books and I believe I have a NPOV and an open mind. But because I have spoken up for certain editors and their right to participate on Wikipedia, there are editors who focus on pseudoscience that will, let's say, not welcome me with open arms. So, what do you think? Would I be banging my head against a wall? I know you have no crystal ball but you've been active on the talk page and I thought I'd ask your opinion. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!21:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Mediation is always like banging your head against the wall. :) If editors weren't digging in their heels there would be no need for mediation. The good thing is that when you bang your head enough times, you either shake something loose that's useful, or you eventually make a new forehead-shaped window. In this case, there are particular editors who are already fed up with SAS81, which is partially justified and partially because of pre-conceived notions about paid editors and/or people with a POV that favors fringe topics. So you'll have that against you already.
It's impossible to know how a mediation will turn out. My worst mediation case involved a dispute between a strong anti-COI administrator and an editor that was suspected of having a COI with the article subject. It lasted for more than two months and only ended when it turned out that the suspected COI editor was actually a sockpuppet and a propagandist employed by the article subject. Oh, and the administrator later had his admin rights removed and was site-banned for a couple of years by Arbcom. If you want to look over the painful process, it is preserved forever here but it's extremely long. But I've also had mediation cases that ended somewhat peacefully with a compromise of some kind. The most important skills to have are patience, an ability to keep people focused on the topic at hand, and the willingness to make suggestions without getting too involved directly. It helps to remind people of relevant policies and guidelines and to suggest whether or not somebody's proposal is in compliance with them, that's a way to guide things along without inserting a personal preference for one side or another.
Oddly enough, my first brush with mediation and COI issues was at a fringe science article. It's all in this archive, but I was still new; my account was only a bit more than a year old. I knew nothing about homeopathy and was coming into things without any preconceived notions. The discussion included the article subject himself, and so it was a bit touchy, but despite my relative inexperience I think things turned out okay, after the discussion was over both the article subject and the person who was conflicting with him had thanked me. So it's definitely possible to have things work out, even in fringe article discussions, though this was much lower-profile and involved far fewer people. -- Atama頭22:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, LaRouche, and on your first mediation. That is like taking on the Tea Party, Scientology or Abortion. For most of the time, it is just you and Will talking to each other. You must have the patience of a saint to stick with that mediation for two months, especially when you had to make sure the other party was being heard but they weren't giving the mediation their full attention.
My problem is that I believe the editors experienced in pseudoscience articles (and this BLP somehow falls under this?) will see me as taking sides from the get-go. And, I'll admit, I tend to support editors who seem outnumbered or who I don't think are being "heard". But that is part of my interest in the process being fair, it isn't because the editor is pro- or anti-Chopra. In fact, what these editors are really mad at me for is supporting other editors who are sympathetic to Rupert Sheldrake and I can't tell you anything about that man, his work or his ideas (and I've stated that openly). But, I thought they were being treated shabbily in the talk page discussion pages so I spoke up for them. And, in turn, alienated these editors who still mention it even though it all occurred last October.
So, I'm thinking that I'm not the best person to get involved in this conversation. The talk page is pretty much a mess, I couldn't follow the discussion at all and, at this point, I think dispute resolution might be the best route. There are just too many points of contention. I think this dispute needs to be structured and organized so the points of disagreement are clearer.
Last fall, I thought about doing some work at dispute resolution, but looking over the cases, it seemed like few of them were resolved. Often editors just stop participating, perhaps when it's clear that resolution isn't a win-lose battle. Thanks for your thoughtful response and letting me use you as a sounding board. It's my nature to want to help but not if my presence will cause some of the editors to become more entrenched. That's not productive for anyone. LizRead!Talk!22:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Claim of User page to be fair and unbiased, unsupported by your interjection regarding Le Prof
Please look deeply into this matter. There is no tantrum, only an argument regarding the proper way to bring an article about a high profile BLP up to high quality. Take the time, and ask me questions if you have them. Do not rush to judgment. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did look into the matter, looking at the article history and the talk page discussions, as well as all of your arguments on ANI. That is the conclusion I reached. I realize you're blocked now (not from me though) but if you wanted to discuss this again when your block expires just leave me a message. I've made a judgment, I don't feel that I rushed to it but I'm open to having my mind changed. -- Atama頭22:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did. Filed away in my noggin but unfortunately not actionable here for reasons I know you know. It's not rare for me to get info like that (considering the areas I frequent here) but I appreciate it when I do. -- Atama頭23:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Atama.
I am the IP editor that filed that case. due to the ruling of the case, noting the illegitimate decision of revert-then-protect, to his preferred POV version, the editor in question, Ymblanter, will still be rewarded for his actions by his protection of the article version to his POV choice (which is against the consensus) for the next 30 days.
I am not asking you to take sides in the dispute as to which version of paragraph should be. May i kindly ask you to simply remove the paragraph in question altogether, until a new resolution is decided in the talk page on what to add there at all. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Edit_protected_again).
The paragraph in question is the last paragraph in the current lead. As you can see the very existence of a paragraph or a discussion about adding there anything only started in the middle of March 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_(TV_network)&oldid=598673212 prior to that there was no paragraph and no controversy. This is ground zero, and this is neutral ground. Thank you for your clarity and insight in the ANI (same ip editor)79.178.48.210 (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind, I guess what I have to say doesn't necessarily benefit anyone by being on the article talk page. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but I prefer not to make edits through edit protection unless there's a compelling reason. Of course I think that Ymblanter's revert prior to protection was not proper, but that was only because Ymblanter was also the person doing the protection. If Ymblanter had reverted you, then some uninvolved administrator protected the article, then assuming those are unrelated and uncoordinated actions that would be fine. Neither version of the article is inherently problematic (if one version was then this wouldn't be much a content dispute and resolving it would be a lot easier) so the best course of action is to leave the page as-is and allow both sides to hash it out. It doesn't matter so much how the article looks right now, what matters is how you establish it should look when consensus is reached. -- Atama頭15:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll demonstrate why one version pushed by negative POVers is in fact, inherently problematic and in violation of WP:QUOTE "The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source."
Here is the current paragraph in the articles lead:
The network asserts that RT offers a Russian perspective on global events.[2] However critics have accused it of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.[11][12][13] In 2013 President Putin admitted “Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position” but stressed “we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line”.[14][15]
Here is the full paragraph, from which the misleading quote was taken (source) (M. SIMONYAN is the editor in chief of RT):
MARGARITA SIMONYAN: My first question is a bit immodest – about our channel. What are your impressions of it?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have good impressions.
When we designed this project back in 2005 we intended introducing another strong player on the international scene, a player that wouldn’t just provide an unbiased coverage of the events in Russia but also try, let me stress, I mean – try to break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams. And it seems to me that you’re succeeding in this job.
I’d like to emphasise something of key importance. We never expected this to be a news agency or a channel that would defend the position of the Russian political line. We wanted to bring an absolutely independent news channel to the news arena.
Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign.
As you can see they have misused Russian President Vladimir Putin, quote. by manipulated editing they have turned his meaning to "Im Admitting (no less) - RT is a propaganda outlet for the russian government". No less.
On second look my edit was wrong too. i wasn't aware that they cut and manipulated that paragraph to that extent.
The second issue with the current lead, is that it should be "some critics have accused it of being a propaganda outlet" and not "critics have accused it of being a propaganda outlet". This has been the consensus in the previous debate, and was in fact presented in the article until the protection expired May 3rd:
According to RT's mission statement "RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint".[2] Western media perception of the network ranges from having a clear pro-Russian perspective, to having a strong pro-Russian bias, to being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.
So, i would think, the two possible neutral reverts are either the version that GedUK locked on April 11, or going back to when there was no paragraph at all back in March. I thank you for your consideration (same ip editor)79.182.128.235 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make good arguments. If I were to participate in the content discussion you might even sway me. But I don't plan on doing so, both because I'm devoting my time elsewhere, and I've been wary lately of involving myself as an editor in articles where administrative action may be needed. (Otherwise I'd fall into the same trap that Ymblanter was in, where I have the tools and feel I should use them but I'm not allowed to.) But while you have good arguments, I still don't see how they show the urgent need to change the article content. As I said at ANI, if content is being disputed and discussion is active about it, there is no need to change content unless it's to remove defamation, vandalism, or copyright violations.
Our policy also states, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus." To explain that, let's say that you come to an agreement that changing the end of the lead to say "some critics", but you still dispute the rest. An administrator could edit through the protection to implement that change, but leave the article locked until an agreement is reached about the rest. But absent a situation like that, no admin (myself included) should be editing the article through protection, to do otherwise is against policy. -- Atama頭20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following what you say, and according to WP:LIBEL "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified"
If manipulating a quote of an individual, to make it just the opposite of its authentic meaning (actually to turn it against him), by the head of government of russia (Putin) to say that the government is in fact using RT as a propaganda outlet in not libelous and a BLP violation. Then I'm not sure what qualifies.
I am not sure why you are reluctant to act on this violation, because the guidelines certainly support you: "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced). Perhaps you prefer to to bring this post to the attention of another serious, and uninvolved admin to enforce the policy. For your reconsideration, and thank you for your attention (same ip editor)79.182.128.235 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a BLP violation. It isn't denigrating Putin, and you're using a very loose interpretation of libel. Here's my advice to you: Stop trying to get me to use administrator fiat to win your content dispute. If you have to use these methods and don't have enough confidence in your position to win people over in a consensus debate, then maybe you should concede. Otherwise, use your energies at the article talk page. You're really reaching at this point in trying to convince me. -- Atama頭22:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your time. I have taken my proposed violations to ANI, for other admins to comment about. By no means this is a filing against you. I just thought it was the proper thing to give you an official notice i have opened an ANI , as our exchange here is mentioned in my filing (same ip editor) 79.182.128.235 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I appreciate your civility and the notification. And I think that it was appropriate to bring it to ANI. I probably should have suggested it myself, other administrators may have a different opinion than I do on this matter. -- Atama頭03:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw your comment. I'm afraid you misunderstood something. You wrote "...except that I see them disagreeing a bit", but there's no disagreement between them at all. They always tried to remove the information of the tributary status from the infobox. I think Junohk's self-revert was a block evasion revert. Please carefully check the revision history again and see Talk. Did you see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonnykim9873? Junohk is deeply involved with blocked users. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the Sonnykim9873 SPI. It showed that Ichrio Nazuki = Oshi niko, which is no surprise, I said on ANI that per WP:DUCK they seemed like the same editor. If I'd known there were other socks I'd have recommended (or taken) administrative action, but nothing else was brought up on ANI. I notice that the CU that was run at that SPI did not discover that either Junohk or Chadlesch were connected to the identified sockpuppets; if they were technically connected to that sockfarm the CU results would have indicated that.
The main reason why I determined they weren't sockpuppets of each other is their communication methods. Chadlesch seems to have a much stronger grasp of English than Junohk. Compare this comment and this comment from Chadlesch, which only have minor flaws, to this comment and this comment from Junohk which suffer from poor spelling, bad grammar and capitalization, and so on. I believe those differences convinced Risker to decline running CU between these editors. Those same differences led me to suspect these were different people who did know each other in real life.
I'm not saying they aren't problematic. Junohk in particular may have some competency issues (I don't believe this edit was intentional but it did reinsert vandalism, inadvertently or not). And the tag-teaming between the accounts is troublesome, assuming that Chadlesch becomes more active and continues to support Junohk. But those are problems unrelated to sockpuppetry. -- Atama頭21:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belatedly, thank you for the explanation. I was busy over the weekend. I restored the sourced material on Joseon as Junohk did not reply/explain to my question and I thought I waited long enough. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm scratching my head a bit, trying to figure out exactly what you did, but if you did it with the best intentions I'm sure it was okay...? -- Atama頭03:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Rinfoli' sockpuppet still disruptive editing
Sadly this hasn't gone away yet: Rinfoli has continued editing today, despite being revealed as a serial sockpuppet. He's reverted almost all my edits on the East London Mosque page - I won't try to undo that whilst he's still operating - and he's been reverted on the Abdul Qayum (scholar) page by another editor. Thanks for bearing with this saga! UsamahWard (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@UsamahWard: What the...? I thought he was blocked! That's definitely an oversight. I'm going to make 100% sure that all of those Aldota socks were actually blocked. (Ponyo said, "All remaining accounts noted as suspects above have already been noted and blocked as Aldota socks in previous checks." So I thought they were blocked). Sorry about that! This won't happen again. -- Atama頭18:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I made sure that all of the sockpuppets identified by CheckUser were blocked and tagged. I also checked all of their most recent edits and made sure that any that weren't already undone were rolled back. This was from a mistaken assumption on my part, sorry about the disruption. -- Atama頭18:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more, it's really tedious. Thanks for taking protective measures on those articles. I told myself I'd look through other pages edited by the sockpuppets over the last couple of weeks to see if there are any lasting issues - but I'll probably leave it a couple of days, I feel I need a break from 'Rinfoli'! UsamahWard (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was a "sleeper" created back in April. As an older account, it can become autoconfirmed and can get around semi-protection. There may be more sleepers but they can't have an infinite amount, and any new accounts created will take time to become autoconfirmed. This is basically the sockmaster throwing a tantrum, hopefully it will die out before long. -- Atama頭20:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama: looks like he's got yet another account - Strangez - but this time I need some help. He's posted a message on my talk page, from which someone may be able to infer my personal email address. If I simply delete it, it's still there in the page history. Can it be permanently deleted? UsamahWard (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the last couple of days I was on vacation in the mountains and away from a computer. I've indefinitely blocked both sockpuppets (they were additional sleepers) and undid all edits either one made that weren't already undone by others. Besides being a deceptive, block-evading sockpuppet, Aldota is a terrible article editor and tends to overlink and make other awful changes to pages, so I don't feel any qualms about reverting any and all edits per WP:BANREVERT. -- Atama頭23:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, is there anything I can do to permanently delete (including history) his posting of part of my email address on my talk page? By the way, is there a record for the number of sockpuppets? There are 13 socks of Aldota currently listed here, added to which there is Rinfolli, Infernez, Fuhudof, Strangez and Miragholo - 19 so far. UsamahWard (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I could. I removed the posting that Strangez had added, and deleted the revision text, so non-admins looking at your page history can't see what was posted. If you want it completely hidden, that's more than what I can do, you'll have to contact Oversight. Also, Rantino is now also blocked. -- Atama頭15:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Mi7778 is another sockpuppet of BBB76. I don't know how to check (for registered users), so I don't know for sure, but the evidence is definitely there. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaronfairborn: Aaron it looks like it worked. I'm looking at the "pending submissions" category and see that it is listed in there. So it's awaiting review now. But it can take a very long time before it gets reviewed, as it states on your draft currently:
This may take several weeks, to over a month. The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient. There are 2725 submissions waiting for review.
I'm sorry you've already waited a month since finishing it, and now that it's finally submitted you might have to wait for another month or more. There are thousands of articles, though, and it takes time for each article to be reviewed. -- Atama頭21:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UsamahWard
I am somewhat skeptical about you accusation on UW. Two editors can edit the same article but it hardly proves a match. A better proof would be if they edit the same array of article and no others.
I'm confused... Do you mean my accusation that UsamahWard = Manspacey? In that case, what you suggest was the case; Manspacey has only edited pages that UsamahWard also edited (with a single exception, one user talk page). But I ended up retracting the accusation anyway, I unblocked Manspacey and UsamahWard and removed the sockpuppet tag from Manspacey. I did so for a number of reasons:
UW did not react the way I would expect most sockpuppeteers to act (it's hard to explain exactly, but sockpuppeteers tend to get more vindictive when caught... there's more to it but it's very subjective).
If Manspacey really was a puppet, the actual abuse was fairly minimal.
Some of Manspacey's edits weren't 100% in agreement with UW's point of view.
The person making the accusation turned out to actually be a pretty prolific sockpuppeteer.
I had made a mistake when putting together a timeline of UW and Manspacey's edits. By an odd coincidence, they had edited the same article one day and one year apart. On a careless examination, I'd thought that Manspacey's first edit was only different from UW's by a day, but it was by a whole year. That had been the clincher for me initially, but when UW pointed out my mistake I had to conclude that my evidence wasn't as solid as I'd thought.
If you're talking about accusations from or to UW, about Aldota's various socks, CheckUser proved that a number of them were a match, and the sockmaster himself has admitted it (and threatened me with further socks via email). I'm just not sure what exactly you're referencing, though, I apologize. -- Atama頭15:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COI Help
Hi Atama. There are a few articles I've been working on in a COI capacity where I'm just having a heck of a time finding someone to stick around and collaborate with. North8000 was one of my most reliable collaborators and was just banned as a result of an Arbcom ruling (*ugh) and I was wondering if you had the time/interest to chip-in in a few places (whenever you have time):
A couple errors on a BLP here that are cited to an article written by the publication's opinion columnist (according to Google), but the article is included in the news section, so it may be a little tricky.
This article had a lot of unsourced contentious material and use to be a borderline attack piece. It's starting to shape up. I made a long list of changes to clean-out the junk sources, etc. and a few editors picked off a few bullets each, but there's still 5 left! Once that's done I'll get back to contributing content working top-down.
I've proposed an Operations section here on a company best-known for their employment practices, benefits, operations, etc. that seems like a clear improvement to me (replacing primary sources with secondary ones). There is also some weird thing on that page about the number of planes the company owns, cited to the FAA, which I think I am having a hard time following editor-input since I would think it would be obvious to just remove it.
@CorporateM: I'll do what I can. WP:SPI has been cut down significantly thanks to the efforts of a few folks so I don't feel as much pressure to focus on it. Some of the articles I was involved with have quieted down recently (generally because the problematic COI editors have been blocked). So I can probably spare some time with these issues to lend a hand. -- Atama頭15:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yours/user:Gigs arguments are sound, well-thought out and well-researched. I respect your opinion and appreciate that you prevented me from making a potential COI edit. @Gigs, FYI - you can see the other articles I'm looking for help on above. Each have some participation from a rotating crowd of editors that may pop in and leave a comment, but ugh, beat me with the WP:NORUSH stick, but spending one month on each section on a large article could mean a year or longer before GA. It's the usual dilemma of a paid editor that complies with WP:COI needing so much assistance from volunteers that have day-jobs and have only a passing interest in the page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording on a warning
I want to say thanks for warning User:Pellaman. Hopefully that will do the trick since we do want him to edit constructively here at wikipedia. I do question your wording of our policy of multiple accounts where you linked to at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You'll have to clarify if I'm wrong or missed something. You wrote:
1. you have created two accounts which is against Wikipedia policy.
2. Unless you have a good reason to, you cannot operate more than one account on Wikipedia.
3. When an editor creates other accounts after the first one, those extra accounts are called "sockpuppets", or sometimes "socks" for short.
Per the page you linked to I find all these statements to be false. 1) Multiple accounts are NOT against wiki policy. Only having them to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus is against policy. 2)There are not really restrictions as to why one has multiple accounts only restrictions on what you can't do with multiple accounts. Your reasons can be your own. 3) Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry extra accounts are not automatically sockpuppets. It says "use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry. I'm sure you just wanted to get your point across simply and firmly and that's fair enough. He probably needed it. I just want to make sure that if a different set of circumstances comes up that your quotes accurately reflect policy. Have a good one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) The first statement is only incorrect when taken out of context. I hopefully explained myself properly in the rest of the paragraph. The editor did not connect the two accounts (per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY) and if they were attempting a clean start they failed (both because the old account wasn't "clean", and because they went back to the old articles they edited previously).
2) You can argue semantics, but really this is a six of one, half dozen of the other situation. I've never seen a situation where an editor is simultaneously not violating WP:ILLEGIT, and yet also not using a second account for one of the reasons listed at WP:VALIDALT. If you have, I'm curious to see it. In my years of working with SPI I haven't.
3) I was trying to explain in the most basic way I could to a new editor. I could have phrased it better but my whole point was to explain simply what was meant when someone says "sockpuppet" or "sock", considering that the editor had already been subject to an SPI report.
I'm well aware that there are legitimate uses of alternate accounts, I've used one myself in the past. But Pellaman/Aggies14 did not go about things the correct way, and the way they used the accounts is abuse (take your pick between Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, Avoiding scrutiny, and Misusing a clean start). My basic point was to make sure that they used one and only one account, because the way they've been using multiple accounts was improper. -- Atama頭19:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Atama. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 02:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
And I was just editing the SPI page to include a CU check for sleepers and noticed you had things handled (as usual). Thanks as always for helping with TJK. Ravensfire (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I took a little more time with this one because it was (slightly) less obvious than before, but the changes to Feng Wei convinced me. -- Atama頭18:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've saved a couple of API query searches for the IP ranges to help spot TJK's edits. Unfortunately, those ranges are from a mobile phone service in India so I have to assume that edits to a Bollywood topic are potentially valid, even though I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them are TJK. The heavy editing from multiple IP's to Hari Om Entertainment and Grazing Goat plus the overlap of some of those editors to Tekken articles helped confirm the IP's for me. The sheer number and the speed at which they change (probably a new one for each session) makes it not worth the time and effort to play whack-a-mole with SPI reports on the IP's. I tend to revert ones that are problematic or any conflicts with other editors but really I'm hoping the IP's will lead me to the next account. The semi-protection should slow down the common targets and for the rest - I'll just keep watch and go from there. Whee - so much fun dealing with socks (but better than some of the other, highly prolific socks out there). Ravensfire (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Atama頭
Thanks TP! If I'd been aware of the page earlier I'd have signed up sooner. I'll see how I can help. -- Atama頭17:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nanshu
He's back and being even more ad hominem-y than before. Check everything he's posted on Talk:Kamuiyaki where he says that I've tainted the web by adding references to the article that the English spelling "kamwiyaki" is in use and his "kamïyaki" is better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryulong: I blocked him for 24 hours. I can only give someone a warning so many times before it stops meaning anything if I don't ever take action. But I will say that Nanshu probably lashed out in frustration for comments like this one. I'm not weighing in on what is or isn't proper romanization, but I don't care so much about which of you is right, I care about how you conduct yourselves when you disagree. And frankly, you're both terrible at it. Nanshu is more blatantly violating WP:NPA which is why I issued the block, but you both should stay away from each other, or at least not comment about each other. I'm tempted to go to a noticeboard to recommend an interaction ban between the two of you. -- Atama頭16:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(You linked to the wrong diff but I know what you're referring to). I could find nothing that used his transliterations anywhere online so I thought that they were his own original research because he appears to be deeply involved in studying this topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to check myself, I looked too and I couldn't find examples of romanization of Japanese terms using diareses, nor did I encounter them when I studied Japanese (though I'm not a professional linguist, and my Japanese is pretty rusty anyway). I do know they are common for Eastern European languages when they are romanized. But again, I'm not taking sides here in discussing MOS or other content-related issues. The problem is that you both use escalated rhetoric when talking about each other. You're repeatedly at each others' throats. That's disruptive and it can't continue. If you can't civilly disagree you shouldn't be interacting with each other. -- Atama頭16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice on Admin board
Hi there. I noticed you were an active on the Administrators Notice Board. A few days ago I left a message about an editor who is adding complex and misleading data to articles [19]. I noticed today that the message has been archived. Do you know if anything has or will be done? I felt it was pretty serious, and the data was added to popular articles. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: The ANI board is for incidents requiring immediate administrator attention. If a report isn't replied to (by anyone, including the person who created the report) or is otherwise inactive for a few days it is automatically archived. If it has already been archived, nobody is likely to act on it because they won't see it.
I'm usually not around Wikipedia much on the weekends, and this particular weekend I was so busy in real life that I wasn't on the site at all so I didn't see it myself. I just took a peek at your message and I'll admit that there wasn't anything that seemed to demand immediate attention. I looked into the editor's contributions, and I have some concerns. He is fairly new (2 months old) and yet has had almost 700 edits, which isn't a huge concern on its own but when you also consider that the editor has had very little communication (no edit summaries, no user talk page or article talk page comments, only a few messages to deletion discussions) it's a worry. The editor appears to be mostly a single-purpose account but right now I don't see any specific actions they are taking which are actionable. Some of what they are doing is original research, but a lot isn't.
I did do a random sample though, and looked at this article, and then did a Google search, and found this page. They are practically identical, and the NRHP page has been around since 2013 so it's obvious that Calvingabor is doing copy-pastes. It looks like I have a lot of cleanup to do, and I'm going to have to leave a very strong warning and keep an eye on his edits, and possibly block him. What a headache. -- Atama頭16:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I was just chatting to another editor today about him being blocked in error - just as I was a while ago. Luckily I don't think I've done that - yet. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the first time I've ever done that. Pretty sure. Kind of sure. I'm not sure. But if I did it was long enough ago I don't remember. At least I figured it out right away and unblocked immediately. :o -- Atama頭19:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hello Atama. Good to see you again. I need your help for some personel attack issue. In this page, User florian clearly insulted me. And his/her tong is very aggressive and disruptive. Please check this. Thanks.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Yagmurlukorfez: I'm tempted to leave a message for Florian Blaschke, "idiotic questions" is at least a strongly-implied insult and close enough to a personal attack that it might warrant a mild warning at least. Technically Florian Blaschke was calling your questions idiotic, not you yourself, but that's not a great distinction. On the other hand, you yourself made comments even worse, trying to drive away an IP with strong language: "It seems you know nothing about this topic. Your ignorence is so clear. Please save yourself your personel opinions about me, su4kin or another users. If you don't know anything except legends (It's obvious) please stay out of the discussion. You just being problem." That's more blatant an attack.
All I can say is, don't take on personal attacks yourself, argue in favor of your ideas and against those you disagree with, you should be able to do that without trying to discredit someone's intelligence in the process. If you can't then you must not have a very good argument to begin with. -- Atama頭21:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for back. I didn't saw any message on his board? On the other hand, yes my last comment might be a little strong but I didn't insult anyone and I did not want that. Still another IPs attacking me and provacate to article's discussion. These kind a topics are totally biased as you can see. You should be check or warn this kind a suspicious and potential vandalist IPs. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't leave Florian a message because, like I said, it was borderline at best and I'd have to issue you both warnings anyway. On the other hand, the IP (46.143.214.22) is way out of line, and I'm leaving a pretty strong message for them. That is not acceptable. I'll note that the other IP in the discussion (114.179.18.37) was already blocked for a week for harassment (they've done much more than the first IP has, and the block is warranted). -- Atama頭16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL thanks but I think Ponyo really deserves the credit, I had no idea there would be that many socks. I'm still kind of processing them right now. -- Atama頭19:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry
I want to inquiry about a editor who got banned from you. You provide the details about the conduct of user, and what really happened? You can answer me here. OccultZone (Talk) 03:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihardlythinkso: I have no idea what you're talking about, I spent a lot of time on my talk page here discussing your block. You never pinged me on your talk page so if you asked me questions after that I wasn't informed. -- Atama頭05:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kumioko. I have made thousands of edits with AWB, I've went through the archives of AWB pages and the archives of its prominent users for knowing about the previous errors, issues of AWB. I've found Kumioko's to be present in more than half of these pages. I was thinking that what were the reason behind his dismissal, I haven't been around as long as you, I wanted to know from you. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk) 05:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well it was a community ban. There was a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, you can read it here. There seemed to be a clear consensus to ban Kumioko after the discussion, only a few people objected to it after a couple of days and many more supported. The reason I gave when I logged the ban was "disruption, soapboxing, and inability to reform after being given numerous chances". I personally didn't have much, if any interaction with Kumioko prior to the ban discussion, nor did I participate in the discussion itself (as an admin my only role there was to view the discussion and determine if a consensus was met, and what that consensus was). -- Atama頭05:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that one, because it was posted on Jehochman's talk page. I had something to do with Jehochman in those days. I agreed about the sock farming, but before there was conviction or even allegation of socking, whole community was against him. I don't know what were the reasons, we shall know someday. OccultZone (Talk) 06:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closer quite specifically said that it was not to be closed as a community ban. "I'm purposefully not going to log this as a ban. Think of it as a wikibreak. If you start socking or trouble making, this courtesy might be rescinded." It should not be listed as a community ban if that's the close. There has been no community ban vote after that. Process is what we all have to deal with. Doctalk06:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closer was me. Jehochman closed a community ban inappropriately, without making any judgment of consensus, which goes against the policy at WP:BAN. That out-of-process closure was protested, and even Jehochman himself agreed with the ban, at which point I looked over the discussion, judged consensus to be in favor of a ban, and logged it. You are correct that process is what we all have to deal with. My mistake was in not removing the closure template that Nyttend had added but that's really just a nitpick. -- Atama頭06:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atama, a few days ago you blocked 86.174.240.211 for harassing another user (after coming off a block for edit warring). I happened to notice that user has been trying to use the unblock template (though somehow managing to make it not transclude), but in a way that likely just constitutes more harassment. You might want to revoke their talk page access, at least in light of what it says currently. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I don't mind being insulted, for an admin to be insulted by someone as clearly disruptive as this is almost a compliment. :) But there are other insults and wild stories showing up on that talk page, and the unblock templates are being misused, so I both revoked their talk page access and extended the block to a month. I'm hoping they get bored and go away by the time the block expires. -- Atama頭15:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ps: Now another IP unrevert to last revision and mentioned "Full Turk Power" in edit summarys. He/she is faking. I think definitely this is a serious suckpuppet or proxy using issue.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Yagmurlukorfez: Changing your IP can be as easy as using a different computer, so it doesn't necessarily need any sort of technical skill. But that IP that threatened you and made racist insults in edit summaries is blocked for a week, and that article talk page is protected for a week. I'm hoping this person and/or people get bored soon, they will eventually. -- Atama頭17:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. Thank you for your help. I realy bored these kind a POV pusher, biased, racist IPs and users but no one can do anything... Whatever, Good Evening. Thanks again. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Atama, can you look at something for me? User:Freakshownerd has "Note also...". So there's two sets of categories? But it's established now aht Freakshownerd = CoM = Candle = all the others, no? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Yeah, it looks like someone made a separate category of accounts that CU connected to FSN, and a category for suspected socks of CoM. I don't see a CU at SPI confirming that CoM = FSN until November 21, 2010, and the category for FSN's confirmed socks was created on November 5 of that year. So my guess is that CoM was only suspected of being FSN at first. That's only speculation on my part though, from what I could gather here. -- Atama頭03:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May 2014
Atama, I am Jin. I have specially came here to tell you i m just lost in this site. I have contributed to Karanvir Bohra last day. At least why you deleted the contribs? To that page? Well good bye and Jin says happy editing. I got it that here comtributing even like a sock is crime. I didnt did anything wrong. Well im sorry i learnt that contributing is your job my job is just to edit n block just block!
42.104.0.168 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Sir, please at least you block me or accuse me do not remove edits. Karanvir Bohra had 25 citing sources but you removed and only 3 left. Wheres your policy that less source article will be challenged?? Atama sir please begging you! 42.104.0.168 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case you actually read my reply, the policy Jin is at WP:BANREVERT. You are de facto banned. "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." That gives me and anyone else on the encyclopedia in good standing the ability to revert any and all edits you make with any of your socks regardless of the quality of your edits. If you honestly want to contribute to the encyclopedia, and you don't just want to play a game where you try to slip edits past us, make an appeal on your user talk page, copying the unblock template text shown in your original block notice. If you make a good appeal, the community may give you a chance, it depends on how sincere you are and how willing you are to listen to suggestions. Not everything you have ever tried to do is bad, but the bad you've done and the disruption it has caused outweighs your good efforts at this point. Try to do the right thing, and maybe you'll get another chance. It's up to you. -- Atama頭15:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see you fight with sock puppets on Theo van Gogh article. It seems that assassination article was recreated here. Please take a look and see if it is the same sock puppet that edits on the main article. --BiH (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atama, I threw myself into this without realizing what was going on and semi'd Assassination of Theo van Gogh for a mere month. The redirect, I think — not sure any longer, this beats my pretty little head. Could you fix, please? Just undo what I did if required, or protect for longer. (Note, I had previously salted Murder of Theo van Gogh, that's not the problem... I'm fairly sure I did the right thing there. ;-)) Bishonen | talk13:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
@BiH: Sorry, my bad. I read the title and since I was just dealing with the other article, somehow thought you were talking about the article created by a different Jin sock. Same text, different title. Yes, this is also Jin. I'll add it to the SPI and tag it for speedy deletion. Ravensfire (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the Theo van Gogh's Assassination article per G5, and salted it indefinitely. Bishonen, Assassination of Theo van Gogh is just fine, don't sweat it. :) -- Atama頭15:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@G S Palmer: The Filipino people article is on my watchlist after all the craziness it went through recently. I already blocked this newest IP and reverted their edits to the old IP's talk page. :) -- Atama頭16:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jin here. I had did applied unblock request on my talk page (albeit got declined). Sir i want just a reprieve from you. I want this ban to get ended up and thus my freedom. I want to be a good editor like you sir. I want to end this once and for all and for that i want my ban to lift up. Because of my sock all get disappointed. Even me, i want to be a responsible Wikipedian. Its really like to be Jailed up. Just one reprieve. And trust me Atama sir Jin will be annihilated from the site thus sock drama will end up. My IP address is on tracking in India. Help me please please sir. Please..
42.104.3.89 (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had said that you needed to listen to the community's suggestions. A recap of what happened on your user talk page:
You made a reasonable unblock request. The unblock request was rejected, as I thought it might have been, because when someone engages in an extensive sockpuppetry campaign it can take some convincing for them to be accepted back to Wikipedia. On the other hand, it did spark a discussion about your block which is what I'd hoped might happen.
It was pointed out on your talk page that TekkenJinKazama wasn't even your first account. Your first account was Malqrrishh which was created in 2010, and blocked on 5 separate occasions for copyright violations, violating our biographies of living people policy, and edit-warring. It was eventually given an indefinite block, by myself, because you were using it to evade the block on your TJK account. I suspect you created your TJK account in the first place in an attempt to rid yourself of the block log that Malqrrishh had (which you shouldn't have done).
Ravensfire pointed out how time and again that you were told what you were doing was wrong and you went against what everyone said. You've recreated articles that the community decided do not belong on Wikipedia. You've edit-warred numerous times. You've created account after account when you are not allowed to edit. You've broken our copyright and BLP policies. Ravensfire then asked you how you were going to convince us that you were going to do things differently, and that was your chance to convince people.
Your response was to argue that what you did wasn't wrong, specifically that recreating an article multiple times was correct because everyone else is wrong about it being non-notable. That is your problem. You insist that you "want to be a good person", to "be a responsible Wikipedian", and a "good editor". But when you're asked to do things that will show you to be a good editor, you defy everyone. This has gone on for four years since your original account. The problem is that what you consider to be "good editing" is different from what everyone else thinks.
I'm going to give you one suggestion. It's not a guarantee that you will be unblocked. I can't even do that myself, unblocking you at this point would require opening a thread at the administrators' noticeboard to get consensus that you should be unblocked. But I'm making you an offer that, if you agree, I will be your advocate. Considering how many times I've blocked your sockpuppets, if I speak up for you I think it will go a long way toward convincing other people that you should be given another chance.
My suggestion is this... We have something we call the "standard offer" which sometimes gets extended to people in your situation. The first part of the standard offer is that you take a break for six months. Today is May 30th, if you are able to stop editing Wikipedia until November 30th, the last day of that month, then that will be a big commitment on your part showing the community that you are sincere and that you are willing to listen. That means that you don't create another account (or use another account you've created that we haven't found yet), and it means that you don't edit anonymously as an IP address. Just stay away completely. We'll be watching for you as we have been for months now, and if you try again we will catch you. If all that time passes and we don't see any activity from you, if nothing shows up at this page which is proven to be you returned again, then send me an email on the last day of November. If I see that indeed you have abided by this, that you have shown patience and restraint, then I will open a thread at the administrators' noticeboard asking for approval to unblock you. I will have a talk with you first, to get some assurances from you about proper behavior, and I'll pass that on in the discussion. If you abide by all of this I think I can get you unblocked. You've made a lot of trouble for many people and wasted peoples' time (including my own) so I think this is a pretty generous offer. If you choose not to take up this suggestion, though, I won't even consider being your advocate. You are just one person against an entire community and you should know by now that what you've been trying to do these last couple of months isn't going to work. I hope you seriously consider my offer. -- Atama頭15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atama my brother i cannot live without editing as its my willing. 6 months without WP will be a 6 month jail. And sir i want to make a confession, since Ra.One has English usage the language infobox must include English and for that Ravensfire brother prescribed me to add reliable source for English use and added to Hindi. (BBFC site is reliable) As per site English has been added up as its second language. See the respected links to prove Ra.One's secondary language. ([22] , [23] , [24]). And as for me, i am ready. But sir still i want your help. For once only. A small Help
Jin, for the 267th time, the language parameter in the infobox is for the primary language of the film. Are you REALLY going to try to tell me that the main version of Ra.One uses English as the primary language? Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jin, as for the film itself, this source says, "He was advised to make the film in English. But Shah Rukh decided to make it in Hindi." The English version of the film is a dub. Many films are dubbed in other languages to appeal to audiences that may not appreciate subtitles. Template:Infobox film states that for the Language box "Only specify the language 'primarily' used in the film." What you're insisting is misusing the box. If your "last request" is for me to go against how the infobox is meant to be used, no, I'm not going to do that. If you have another request please let me know. -- Atama頭21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama:Yeah, that category is a bit odd. It's described as films made in India where English is wholly or partially spoken. It's not just a couple of words in the film, but it's not significant usage. So it meets the category as described. Ravensfire (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, Jin. The article already acknowledges the use of English in the film. It just doesn't belong in the infobox. -- Atama頭21:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atama and my dear friend RavensfireEnglish is included in BBFC and so it says. Because of my jail term i cannot come here neither edit any actions (as i promised to WP and you all) i wanted this action done atleast. So i can rest in peace. Atleast help me in this. This was my final request to my only. Please bhai..
So you want us to lie and say that Ra.One is not primarily an English film? Because that infobox is only for the primary language. Or are you insisting that the film equally divides its dialog between English and Hindi? Because all of our sources say it doesn't.
We could perhaps fit into the film the fact that the movie does have some English dialog in it. It can't go into the infobox, because again, that is only for the primary language, which is Hindi. But elsewhere in the article I'm sure we can fit it in. Otherwise we are misleading readers about the nature of the film. I hope you understand why it's important to avoid that in an encyclopedia. -- Atama頭17:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atama no one is misleading or misguiding. You are my mentor, my brother and why i will mislead you? God English is used in it. Coz the central character played by Khan is a Tamilian who speaks heavy English in Tamil accent. Second point my mentor, The songs of film has frequent English lyrics (See songs Chammak Challo, Right By Your Side, Bhare Naina, Dildara). And moreover English speaking Chinese actor Tom Wu played a concrete lead with Khan. I have enough points to prove RO is bilingual. For my sake, For God sake no one is misguiding. Please have faith in me once please my mentor n brother. 42.104.3.7 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jin - this is a yes or no question. No dancing around the answer. Is English the primary language of th film. One word answer here - yes or no. Ravensfire (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So when asked whether English is the primary language, you said yes. Which means you're lying. And this is why you're blocked, and will stay blocked. You are untrustworthy and a waste of everyone's time. -- Atama頭18:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey God swear im not lying. Atama sir ok if i am lying So BBFC is also lying or what? Well no one is lying and i swear of my God. Tell me one thing, i am just tryin to add English to Ra.One and this article is my main subject. Had i said to add Tamil (dubbed language). No i just said the primary language Hindi & English just this only. Only and only this is my salvation if language is put up and i do not appear here neither will post on your talk page. You also believe in God. So why i will false swear of my God. In history of Wikipedia, no one pleaded as much i did. Please for God sake help me and i will be free and you all too. My begging limit is exceeded and i can only beg. For Allah's sake im not lying 42.104.0.14 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You really think that language primarily used in Ra.One is English, not Hindi? Wow ... That's contrary to literally everyone I've talked to on this. There are absolutely English parts in the original film. There's even a line in the article about this - "He declined to make the film in English to increase its appeal for Western audiences, feeling that "cracking Hollywood on their terms" was unnecessary". Jin, nobody has questioned, ever, that English was used in Ra.One. But you are tilting at windmills now. Out of courtesy to Atama, feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page or on your (TekkenJinKazama) talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd thank you...
...for your comments re: Froid's complaint, and WPP's, but I wouldn't want to be seen as currying favor with an admin, so... Happy Johnny Weissmuller Day! BMK (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're still in the fray at the Barry article, I just couldn't take the constant POV-pounding by the various SPAs, especially Ganbarre's persistent attacks on my character and my editing (or maybe that was Doctor Gonzo or whomever - so hard to keep them all straight...another one just popped up on the talk page today). I try to stay out of The Dramaz but just find it so hard to resist fixing up crappy, badly-sourced puff-pieces when I come across such content on Wikipedia's pages. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: I am administrator which automatically means that I'm a masochist. I don't thrive on drama (to the contrary, I try to reduce it if at all possible when I run across it) but neither do I shy away from it. Unfortunately I'm thoroughly involved at that article so my admin hat stays off, which has been a problem since these SPAs keep arriving. Luckily other admins have dealt with the older SPAs. -- Atama頭16:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize there was a COIN post on this particular company. I noticed you responded. It looks like an article filled with junk due to conflicting advocates using poor sources to support their viewpoints. Some of those advocates are paid and some are unpaid. I will work to get it un-protected so it can be edited again and then probably stubbed. CorporateM (Talk) 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: Sorry I didn't reply earlier, it's on my watchlist. I'm keeping an eye on it. I'm also staying uninvolved as far as content goes so that I can step in as an admin if necessary. I'm aware of the article since it has been to COIN at least twice. -- Atama頭15:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good idea - I see it is at ANI now. I am very surprised to see so much support for the use of low-quality sources. Honestly, I think I just don't like working with others, outside a handfull of neutral editors I know do good work. What I need to do is stop getting involved in articles where I know there will be arguments, because I basically prefer to work alone. Maybe that makes me a bad team player ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 16:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Working alone doesn't make you a bad team player. Trying to force your opinion on others and/or ignore their opinions makes you a bad team player, and you don't do that. There's nothing wrong about wanting to work in uncontroversial areas. Good articles are good articles whether they are developed primarily by one editor or a dozen editors. There are plenty of times when I walked away from situations that gave me a headache, and there are many areas I don't dabble in (such as WP:AE *shudder*) because I want to avoid the irritation and extreme levels of drama. -- Atama頭16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like that you always have such a positive message. I have become so jaded that I basically presume that any editor with an interest in a company article is an advocate of some kind and that the article must be defended against... basically everyone. It's a very poor outlook, but I can't help myself after seeing so many aggressive and complex manipulation schemes. CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLPSELF and SPA, can you comment on an AE?
Hello Atama - I've been hit with an AE, with the recommendation to block me from the Chopra article as an SPA, even though I'm a direct representative of Dr. Chopra regarding the NPOV violations on his article. This is puzzling. I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not to ask you for a comment. I'm trying to gain some clarity as to how WP:BLP self is now being taken away from Dr. Chopra and what exactly the offending behaviors are. As you can imagine, this puts me in an awkward situation. Is there anyway to diffuse this? SAS81 (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a statement, sure. I once gave you some advice on the article talk page, you can see it here. In essence, my advice to you was to slow down. You didn't take the advice (which I don't hold against you, it was just advice that you could have used any way you saw fit) but what Hipocrite was asking for at the AE page is essentially an enforcement of what I'd suggested before. Sandstein is suggesting that you should be banned from that talk page altogether. I think that what I'll do is support Hipocrite's suggestion, which I suggest you also do. I think that doing so could be a huge help to you, because (A) it shows that you're willing to accept the terms suggested by one of your biggest detractors on that talk page, and (B) it still gives you an opportunity to participate on the talk page. I'm not sure it's going to be better for you than that.
You might see support from other editors (like Littleolive oil or SlimVirgin, and Askarhc already spoke up for you) but I don't know that it will be enough. But look at it this way; even if your participation at the article talk page is limited, there are other editors (those who aren't labeled as SPAs with a COI) who share a sentiment similar to yours. So I think even your limited participation will still have a chance to have an impact. Just like my advice before, you can take this or leave it, but be cautious, because I think a page ban is a possibility for you, fair or not. -- Atama頭15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Atama, wise advice. Since you gave me that advice awhile back, more editors where engaging with me and I was just trying to keep up with the pace of the discussion where I was included, I apologize if this was over stepping the boundaries you suggested I keep. SAS81 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE RE: Advice
I want to thank you sir for spending your time commenting on the AE. Although a little worried you may have felt that I disregarded your advice - which honestly is not the case. I truly did my best to apply it (even refraining posting for a week). The problem i was having was finding a way to practically apply that advice - which to be honest stumped me after awhile in a chaotic environment. Since just focusing on one word (I began with 'physician' and then moved on to 'guru') opened up so many questions from everyone there (another reason my count is high I have to speak to all of them) and then everyone else was giving me advice on what to do to. For example TRPoD was telling me to do the opposite, focus on content for the body. Another editor was asking for sources around another section in the body. It seemed unmanageable, at least at my level of Wikipedia experience and I was relieved when SlimVirgin came in (you see I stayed back allot when she did).
Anyway, I am going to completely re-tool my entire approach. I want to post less too, believe me :) Thanks again for your time. SAS81 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I don't know where else to start.
You closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamdirfan987/Archive - permanently blocking all the suspected accounts. Since then, I have found an additional account User:Hamd Irfan, which User:Hamdirfan987's old user page stated was his real name. Furthermore, although this account has only made 2 edits, the first was to request page protection for Raashid Alvi and the second was to alter a quotation by Alvi in another article, which fits the sockpuppet pattern exactly. The full protection expires on 17 June, and, although I have asked the protecting admin, User:Dougweller, for it to be semi-protected for a longer period, being a long standing account, this account could become autoconfirmed in a few minutes.
Can the existing SPI be extended to cover this extra account? Or would it need a whole new SPI? Or should I be asking this question somewhere else? - Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjayay: The way SPI works is that you can create a new SPI using the same sockmaster as before (Hamdirfan987). You do that under the "How to open an investigation" section on the main SPI page, by entering in the sockmaster's name and hitting the "submit" button. Because the sockmaster's user name is the same as the old case, it is automatically connected to the previously-archived case for administrators, clerks, and checkusers to refer to during the new investigation. When the case is closed, it will be added to the existing archive.
Also, if you are using Twinkle, go to the user or user talk page for the sock. Click on ARV in the User Page menu and change the report type to SockPuppet. Add the sock master name and put in your evidence and click Submit Query. For easy, WP:DUCK type reports, this is often the easiest way. Just make sure you do put evidence in there and it's enough to convince folks. If it's a more complicated case or I'm reporting multiple socks, I'll go through SPI as Atama outlined. Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I took a shot at improving the Yank Barry section we had previously discussed. Could you take a look at it and make any necessary changes. I have to run but I'll check back later. I would really appreciate it if it does not get deleted or reverted, but is used as a beginning to better the article. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to misrepresent me in a discussion, but insisting to others that I'd reversed my vote on an RfC Survey is detrimental to my voice on WP and unethical. I'm sorry to take up your time with this; I'm at my wit's end with TheRedPenOfDoom's behavior here, but I don't want to waste the community's time with an AE or similarly disruptive procedural. Any feedback would be welcomed. The Cap'n (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Askahrc: I'm tempted to say that TRPoD wasn't saying that you !voted Support, but that your opposition argument strengthens the Support argument. I've made similar suggestions before in discussions, saying that the way a person argued the opposite viewpoint from myself is self-defeating.
However, he then struck Littleolive oil from his comment, as if to say "sorry for misrepresenting your !vote" so now I'm not entirely sure what the heck he meant. *scratch head* I'll ask him to clarify. -- Atama頭15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another potential (but unlabeled) op-d
Hi Atama. Last time I asked you to review a source that I thought was an op-ed, you gave me the smackdown (playfully speaking) and I felt like I should have done all that research myself (even if I was helping her on a pro-bono basis). Now I have a similar situation, but in this case I have prepared more materials and am more confident in my assessment. And I thought maybe I should invite you to a round 2. I know, boxing metaphors might be a poor choice because it depicts battlegrounding, but... CorporateM (Talk) 01:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you could provide some links / documentation regarding the new blocks which I will need to abide by.
Thank You.
BDBJack (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New BdB account
I just wanted to bring to your attention that there is a new BdB corporate account, User:BDBIsrael, which has hit the ground running by making an edit request not at the BdB talk page, where it can be seen and commented on by other editors, but on a random administrator's talk page. This is precisely the kind of wikilawyering that has been counterproductive in the past. I think that BDB needs to be restricted to one account, and that account needs to be instructed only to post on the talk page of the BdB article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Coretheapple. I am surprised at the number of notifications the system is giving me from you. As I said elsewhere, I am unable to edit the BDB talk page for some reason, so I am making noncontroversial requests at the talk pages of administrators familiar with the case. I am responsible for ensuring Banc De Binary's ongoing compliance with Wikipedia policy and do not intend to "wikilawyer" by asking that our legal identity be properly reflected in the lede and by asking that the article be recognized as not an orphan, in that both are incontrovertible facts. In my position, I hope I am familiar enough with policy to wonder at your statement that a corporation should be restricted to one account, because policy actually requires a corporation to be restricted to zero accounts. BDB employees and contractors edit personally and independently. If you believe a BDB employee or contractor is mishandling a conflict of interest, that is a matter for the noticeboard, where there is an open discussion.
It is unclear why Coretheapple is disseminating the information about this edit request rather than simply affirming that the article is not an orphan and the tag should be removed.
Atama, My intent is to facilitate discussion on the talk page if I am allowed to edit there. I believe, based on discussion with an OTRS volunteer, that there is consensus for "stubbing" the article, and that "stubbing" would also reduce the number of requests and potential for cross-talk. I would like your advice on bringing the article into Wikipedia compliance by "stubbing" or other means. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus at this point for anything. I'm hoping to try to get a consensus formed through mediation but haven't gotten to it yet. It will devote a lot of time from me, which requires me to neglect other things (which is why I don't do mediation much anymore) but I think it's important that some kind of mediation be done (even something informal and voluntary). I'll try to get the framework started on the article talk page soon, even today if possible.
Coretheapple, I think we're between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand I'm not comfortable with having multiple BDB employees participating in discussions. Two is probably fine, though I might suggest considering them to be considered as a single voice in consensus discussions (as in WP:MEAT) but I worry if there are suddenly a dozen participants. (Though if things get to that point we'd probably have another discussion on a public noticeboard, WP:AN might be best, to decide whether to ban the entire organization if it is that disruptive.)
On the other hand, we want to encourage transparency (which BDBIsrael is providing, as BDBJack has been) and discouraging multiple accounts may have the effect of encouraging account sharing, which we very much don't want. So for now I don't see why BDBIsrael's participation should be discouraged. We'll see how this plays out, I guess. -- Atama頭18:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Atama. I may have misread your instructions in mediation, as my posting a full list of concerns was regarded as disruptive and became the subject of an administrative thread. It may take you a little time to catch up on the events of this weekend. I await your further instructions as to mediation and any advice you can provide about the risk of noncompliance from my account or that of BDBJack. BDBIsrael (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though I tried I couldn't get to a PC much at all this weekend, so I wasn't able to monitor that discussion page, I'll try to catch up. Thanks for the message. -- Atama頭15:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shugden socks
Please see Bushranger's talk page. Bush seems busy in real life. These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:
@Heicth: I'm sorry but I think you'll need to explain things for me a bit. Is March22nd the sockmaster? I understand they all seem to be pro-Shugden accounts but what connects them together? -- Atama頭01:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prasangika37 and Essence37 both end in "37", and were created within a couple of weeks of each other. To me its obvious they are the same. March22nd repeatedley promoted (diff1diff2diff3 etc. etc.) a self-published book called "Heart Jewel" from Tharpa publications, and was opposed by CFynn and myself. Now Prasangika37 states "I think in the past there have been accusations of self-publishing as a reason to not use Tharpa Publications points" and "If I can't find anything we might be backed into a corner using just the Heart Jewel text" and inserted the same book into the article! Yes March22nd is the sockmaster. Heicth (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Private Mail
Hello, Atama. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Diff to comment regarding your previous input found here: [18] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
