Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 12 March 2014

Archives

Year 2007 Year 2008 Jan-Sep 2009 Oct-Dec 2009 Jan-Mar 2010 Apr-Dec 2010 Jan-Jul 2011 Aug-Dec 2011 Year 2012 Year 2013

Keithbob

You write "Keithbob's connection with the movement was never hidden." Are you sure? What exactly is his connection with the movement, in your opinion? How did you come to form that opinion? Hipocrite (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

He was one of a group of editors that I worked with many years ago. He even went by a different user name at the time, "Kbob". I knew back then that he had a pro-TM leaning. And I've had a number of contacts with him over the years following, as well as others in that group (and those who opposed that group, such as Doc James, who I have respect for as well, and Will Beback who I worked beside as an admin countless times at various places). My experiences with all involved were pleasant even though they tend to bicker against each other. (With the possible exception of Fladrif, who was often a bit too aggressive, and the definite exception of The7thDoctor whose sockpuppets kept causing trouble.) It's almost 5 years later and they're still at it. As for any connection to the movement itself, that I never witnessed even though it was alleged. A number of allegations were tossed back and forth, and no COI was ever found. I thought that the Arbitration case summed it up well; there were some editors who were more pro TM, and others who were more opposed. None of the COI allegations that were brought forth (and there were many) had any meat to them. As far as more specific examples, it has been years, I can't take the time now unfortunately to dig everything up. Some stuff is buried in COIN archives, some in the TM archives, some on user talk pages, etc. I just know the opinion I have of Keithbob as one of the more level-headed members of that group of people in what were often very volatile arguments.

I hope this answered your question well enough. Again, this is just my opinion, and the impression I came away with from many varied discussions. -- Atama頭 08:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No, not really. Let me put it this way... Imagine that Company X had a company town in South Masapequa New York (not all of Masapequa, which was the smallest town I could think of, because Farfield is only 9k people). By company town, I mean that it was basically nothing but that company and offshoots of that company. Then imagine you had an editor who lived in that company town, who you, as a believer that that editor is generally a good person, had a "pro-company leaning." Do you find it even remotely plausible that said editor doesn't have a conflict of interest? Don't you find it completely fucked up that he's still denying it? Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Atama, as you mention above, it seems obvious that Keithbob has a connection to the TM movement. But he is explicitly denying that he has a COI ("as I have stated more than once, I do not have a conflict of interest on the TM topic"). I'm having real trouble reconciling the idea that he's "never hidden" his connection to the movement with his outright denial of any potential conflict of interest. I think that's what Hipocrite is getting at, albeit using slightly more emphatic language. MastCell  19:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

These are allegations that have been gone over multiple times. A conflict of interest requires a direct connection to the organization. This is all old news and nothing has changed for almost 5 years. For my answer, just look at the COIN archives. -- Atama頭 20:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I didn't mean to beat a dead horse - apologies. MastCell  20:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize! I've known both of you for a while now, spoken with you lots of times at various places. I respect you both and I totally understand your concerns, I just don't share them. I haven't been very active on Misplaced Pages for a long time but all else aside it's good to see there are still familiar faces around. :) -- Atama頭 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In any case the RfA seems heading into WP:SNOWBALL territory so this is probably all moot. -- Atama頭 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 11:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks !

Hello, Atama ! Thank you for your kind welcome ! Though registered for some time now, I am indeed quite new to Misplaced Pages, and till now intervened only sporadically. So it's with undisguised pleasure that i accept your help offer. In fact I have already a question : why, when I click on my user name on an english wikipedia page, it says :

User:Krazycram Misplaced Pages does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Krazycram. If in doubt, please verify that "Krazycram" exists.

?

Are there frontiers on Wkipedia ? ( I am French and registered on fr.wikipedia. You can read (if you read French—if not, I will present myself later in English) my presentation at https://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Krazycram )

Well, anyway, again, it was very kind of you to send me this message and I really appreciate.

Looking forward to future exchanges,

All the Best,

Krazycram (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(Well, I typed the four tides but nothing happens— hope it works !

Unfortunately, I have no formal training in French and what I little I understand is through deduction, I really can't say I can speak or read it to any useful degree. I think I can understand some of your user page, where you state that you are a journalist and a translator for English and Italian (which is pretty great) and that you've been editing since 2010.

Every editor on the English Misplaced Pages has a user page and a talk page. It's the same as the French Misplaced Pages, where I can see that your user page is here, and your discussion page is here. By default neither page exists for an editor until someone creates it. I created your talk page by leaving a welcome, and you can create your user page by leaving information about yourself, or almost any other information you want to provide. Guidance on what is appropriate for an English Misplaced Pages user page is here. Editors are given a lot of freedom in what they can have, my recommendation is to include any information that is relevant to Misplaced Pages. From what I've managed to understand from your French Misplaced Pages user page, the information that you have there would be perfect for here (except translated into English, of course). I use my own user page to tell a few things about myself that I think would matter here (where I live, what I do for a living) and my philosophy about Misplaced Pages.

I'm an administrator here on Misplaced Pages, which doesn't mean a lot except that I have a few tools that other editors don't, and there are a few actions I'm allowed to make that others might not be able to do, but it doesn't give me any special authority or status. I've been around for more than 7 years, though, and I've learned a lot since my time here, so I'm happy to help you with any questions you might have. Again, welcome, and I think you're doing a great job here so far. -- Atama頭 22:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Shit happens

We all make mistakes. Apology accepted. No hard feelings.
Next time, when you doubt the appropriateness of a response, especially something as Draconian as blocking a well established editor, follow you instincts. And give them a warning.
But the Inquisitional atmosphere at WP:ANI is appalling. There is no WP:AGF or presumption of innocence there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry again. Thank you for being so accepting of my apology. ANI is generally the last place you ever want to take an issue. I spend a lot of time there responding to problems, but I only once ever opened a thread there and I regretted it. I feel like there's a lot of good coming out of that board (or I would avoid it entirely) but the presumption of guilt is often too strong and AGF is forgotten or downplayed. Partially that's because so much bad behavior is highlighted there, but partially it's because there's a persistent drama culture. One thing I try to do is make an effort to lessen the drama (though in this case I escalated it) by encouraging discussion and offering compromises.

I don't know if I should be comforted, or saddened, but I remember when ANI was actually worse. A few years ago there was a unified effort to limit the amount of drama by getting people into the habit of closing threads when they got too far or the issue was either resolved or there seemed to be no action needed. It's refreshing to see that threads now get "closed", and the emphasis at ANI is to try to close threads as soon as a conclusion is reached (or it's determined that a conclusion can't be reached). That used to almost never happen. -- Atama頭 22:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If I may chime in, one of the issues with WP:ANI is that all too often disputes between individuals get escalated in the hot house atmosphere it creates and the first to make an accusation gets more attention whether their original complaint was justified or not. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Atama, I remember those days too, and at the time I made concerted efforts to close threads as soon as possible. I still do that every now and then. I remember Fluffernutter being involved in those discussions, and I closed a bunch of things "per Fluffernutter's rule". I still believe that the "A" in ANI should be taken more seriously, to avoid the kinds of free-for-all that makes ANI sometimes an awful place. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

You're hanging out at ANI more. Good--thank you. I always value your input, your knowledge, and your common sense. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's really kind of you to say that, I appreciate it. It doesn't matter how long I've been on Misplaced Pages, deep down I still feel like a newbie who doesn't know what he's doing and I'm wondering why I don't get called out for it more often. I think one reason is because I take Wikibreaks, spontaneously and for longer periods that I plan to, and when I come back I worry about what I missed in the interim and what I'll get wrong because of it. But I like to help people if I can, that's why I hang out there. -- Atama頭 21:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your calm presence, too, Atama, enough that I came to visit your User page. The times when I do check in at AN/I it often seems like everything is either at 0 mph or 90 mph. Complicated cases receive little admin involvement while a discussion about a possible community ban can go from posting it, discussion, voting and ban in less than a day. I'm seeing less of the dozen editors or so that I noticed in the fall were quick to jump on the "ban that IP" bandwagon which I think is a good thing. A few months ago, there used to be more of a pile-on, either for or against the OP.

I have a few questions I'd like to get some admin feedback on but they aren't a "case" meaning, it's a policy discussion rather than a complaint about a specific editor. Perhaps AN is the correct forum for this. One concern is that I see IPs quickly blocked (sometimes the same day they post their first edit) and labeled a "sock" without any apparent evidence to support a case (or it would be at AN/I). Other editors active in anti-vandalism efforts will label an account as a proxy for a blocked editor (again, without evidence but just a hunch) and revert all of their edits. WP:DUCK gets invoked with seems like it gives license to harass new editors without having to go through due process. When I question this behavior, I get told that I'm enabling trolls because I don't support these wholesale reverts.

Didn't mean to go on so long on this tangent, it's just my current pet peeve and since I first started editing as an IP (for years), I don't like to see them targeted as suspicious without any justification. Liz 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz, I agree with your points about IP editors getting a bum ride. Not to excuse the response but I would suggest you spend a little time on anti-vandal patrol and when you've observed the volume of tedious and childish edits from IP editors, the knee-jerk response to IP editors is more understandable. I've also seen it from the other side, I'm aware of a Chilean IP editor who responds in such an aggressive and boorish manner but gets away with it time and again as he constantly IP hops. Were he a named account he'd have been blocked years ago. I believe User:Drmies remembers him. Problem editors who are blocked and resort to IPs are also dreadfully easy to spot, so WP:DUCK does get invoked a lot. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I get confused. There's a few IPs with whom I get along because they make positive edits and get crap from registered accounts, but some of them do indeed lash out, paying back as good as he gets. WCM, I don't let people "get away with it" because they hop; the hopping isn't always voluntarily. Sometimes people get away with it because they aren't detected, sure, but that's unfortunate, nothing more. And let's remind ourselves that some of the registered editors are boorish too, but they can often afford to be passive-aggressive because the benefit of the doubt is never given to the IP. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't implying you did let them get away with it (far from it) and I apologise if I gave you that impression. Yes indeed, he often gets away with it from a lack of detection more than anything else. I violently agree that sometimes IP editors get crap from registered accounts and this isn't helpful. Sadly a lot of it is down to the jaundiced experience of editors, one of the reasons I stopped patrolling is I recognised I was getting jaded. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing with an IP can be an odd experience. In one sense, you're less anonymous, because your IP address may potentially give away personal information. It can be used to geolocate you to a particular part of the world, or more specific info (such as being in a block of addresses belonging to a school or other organization). But unless you have a static IP, your edit history could point to multiple people, so we can only assume from behavioral similarities if edits made from an IP were all from the same person. Without being able to look at a person's edit history, it makes it more difficult to form an opinion of that person, they're an unknown factor. So the trust level is less than it would be for a person with an established account, even if the IP belongs to someone who has been editing Misplaced Pages for more than a decade.

A similar level of distrust is given to new editors, for the same reason. With one exception; there is a great chance for an assumption that mistakes from the editor are due to their newness, and not from deliberate disruption or negligence. There is the hope that if they get some help they can grow to being a useful, helpful, and productive editor. This comes from the fact that they took the time to go through the process to create an account, and in the future we will be able to look at their editing history and see what they've done. So they're likely to receive an assumption of good faith from an established editor.

I try to treat new editors and IP editors fairly. I've sided with either kind of editor in a debate many times. It's easy to do if you remember that there's a person at the other end no matter what they look like on your computer screen. I have a bias favoring established editors, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Established editors, in my mind, have earned that trust through their track record. It's the logical and reasonable thing to do. That doesn't mean treating new and anonymous editors like second-class citizens, but you also don't pretend it doesn't matter either.

I can't comment on people who block or revert new and IP editors because it varies from case-to-case. I've blocked people numerous times because they're clearly trying to evade a ban or block, and are editing as an IP or pretending to be a new editor. It's easy and dangerous to abuse WP:DUCK, but sometimes it is essential. There are a number of editors (admins and non-admins) who have enough experience dealing with particular disruptive editors who can instantly tell from a person's editing pattern, or communication idiosyncrasies, or other factors who they are and can and will identify them immediately. It can seem somewhat fascist to allow a person to unilaterally make those determinations, but over the years I've come to trust those individuals because they know what they're doing. Like Wee Curry Monster says above, it takes some time volunteering in those areas before you can appreciate what they do and how they do it, and why it's necessary. And I've sometimes been able to do it too in my work with SPI and stopping other kinds of disruption. I'm not a "vandal fighter", I prefer to act more as an assistant on this project than as a bouncer, but sometimes the best way to help is to keep out the people who do more harm than good.

Sorry about rambling a bit, but this is something I've had to think about and learn over my time here and it's helpful for me to get this out from time to time. -- Atama頭 01:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

COI stuff

Hi Atama. I noticed your participation on my COIN post and at the new ToS discussion and figured since you have an interest in COI, I would see if you were interested in chipping in on stuff like this. This article has some mild signs of COI from my prior participation 1.5 years ago, mixed with some poor editing from a now-banned editor that was harassing/stalking me at the time. The proposed draft is literally 5 paragraphs, which is about right for this particular company.

Due to the volume of my COI work and the manner in which I perform it, my needs for collaboration are bottomless and I am always trying to spread the burden of working with me among as diverse of a set of editors as possible. However, I figure it's personal choice. Many editors don't want to work (for free) with an editor that is sponsored. So I'll take no offense if you simply choose not to. CorporateM (Talk) 23:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help as I have time. I have no problem working with paid editors, I've even worked with PR folks and talent agencies, communicating on and off Misplaced Pages at the request of the WMF (though I haven't been asked to do any of that stuff for awhile). I don't have any hang-ups about that sort of thing. I have mixed feelings about paid editing in concept, but I definitely don't mind working with certain paid individuals like yourself who are transparent and honest about what they do and who ultimately improve the project. -- Atama頭 23:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think having mixed feelings is the right and proper place to be. Those with strong opinions on the subject tend to AGF too hard or ABF too hard. Though to be honest a five-paragraph stub on a small company is probably only of very marginal value/importance to Misplaced Pages. However, there are certainly other areas where my contributions are more weighty. The Fluor Corp. article I am working on comes to mind. Many of the sources are hard-cover books and archives I dug up at the library - that kind of research on a $30 billion company is of immense value.

Anyways, thanks in advance!! I noticed Drmies already started making some edits to the SMS Audio page I linked to. If you have time to take a look at my draft at Talk:SMS_Audio#Update.2Fimprovement I'd be thankful (unless he beats you to it). CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Atama. There is a much larger body of work I'd love your input on (see Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Fluor_Corp.), but I see you've been active on that board and will probably see it anyway! CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look over Fluor Corp. already, though I haven't actually done anything yet. I think Drmies has done a great job as SMS Audio as it is so I don't think my input is needed (or will be helpful, it already looks good to me). I'll chime in at COIN as well. -- Atama頭 21:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hrm. I saw user:Drmies' edits to SMS Audio. I didn't know if those were the only edits he felt were needed, or if it was just some quick things he spotted. It still contains trivial information like "In June 2012 SMS headphones were marketed through QVC infomercials" and a promotional plug for Nohe "Nohe was a former Gillette executive who founded KonoAudio in 2007 out of a personal interest in music and high-end audio equipment." It uses primary sources for incorporation dates in different states and eek! "Kleer is a 2.4GHz 16 bit platform" Verbotten word! Also none of the new information was added. Tickle me demanding. But I don't want to pile everything on you - the Fluor article is a big ask already being that it is a large company/article. I'll pester someone else and spread myself around a bit. CorporateM (Talk) 22:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll do what I can. I missed what you mentioned here, I agree with what you said, I just didn't see it. As I've said before, I don't have the highest skill level when it comes to article content, and I'm obviously not as good as you are. I've definitely never gotten an article anywhere close to GA before. But I'll do what I can. -- Atama頭 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. North also reviewed my SMS Audio work and I implemented some minor edits based on his feedback. I wanted to make sure if you do have any comments that you've had a chance to chime in before he or someone else fulfills the Request Edit. Or, obviously, you may choose to do so yourself.

Since you mentioned you were more of a moderator than content-creator you may also have an interest in chipping in at Yelp, Inc.. There have been a lot of disagreements between editors on a lot of issues. If those arguments are a result of my COI, I am somewhat leaning towards that maybe I should just abstain from the article in the future, if editors do not feel my participation is helpful and/or are generally uncomfortable with it. However, I am also curious if I am just use to working on mostly-abandoned articles and I should not take the arguing so seriously, as many of the arguments on that page have been between keithbob, candle and Wikidemon.

You are probably much more adept than I at resolving arguments and I'm afraid I've made quite a mess of my own attempts. CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I know Keithbob and Wikidemon, I'll take a stab at it soon, thanks. -- Atama頭 04:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nanshu

He finally posted in the ANI thread after changing its title and using his comment to continue to talk down to me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

He's still at it, using "knowledgeless control freak" to refer to me twice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe a block here will really be a useful measure of controlling his behavior? Considering before this dispute ran wild, his last period of edits was in August 2013.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. The usual procedure with personal attacks is generally to warn a person, and if they don't stop, to block them. The threat of a block might not work, but maybe a block will. I've seen a short block be enough to cause a person to change. Blocks are supposed to be a way to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, and they do that either by preventing a person from participating or acting as a deterrent. If Nanshu sees that their behavior is counter-productive because it will prevent them from participating in areas that they want to, it might work. But we'll see. I don't like blocking Nanshu, because I've seen even you agree with their actions from time to time and I think they have knowledge that is useful. They just need to stop turning disagreements into battles. -- Atama頭 16:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Article you deleted that is back

I marked an article for deletion under the A7 criterion. You deleted but it is now back. Should it get re-deleted? It is a different user now, but the previous user who made it was making articles about himself and his own films. Thanks Reedman72 (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting in touch with me. Actually, I deleted the article under the G7 criterion is for an article which was deleted by the author and sole significant contributor. Basically, if someone creates an article and nobody else makes any significant changes to it, and then the author wants to get rid of it, we allow that. The article has so far been deleted 4 times per speedy deletion; twice for the G7 criterion by myself and User:Acroterion, and twice for the A7 criterion by JohnCD and User:Anthony Bradbury (Anthony also cited G11 because it appeared promotional at the time he deleted it).

I don't see that it meets any of those criteria at the moment. By citing his appearance in a number of TV shows and films, it makes a credible claim of importance, so A7 doesn't apply. (An article only need claim the subject is notable with a plausible reason to avoid speedy deletion, it doesn't need to prove notability with significant coverage in reliable sources.) It's a bit promotional (the sentences that speak of his dedication to his mother and how proud she was of him are unencylopedic) but you can easily trim that from the article without removing context or completely rewriting it so G11 doesn't apply. And since the author isn't trying to delete it, G7 doesn't apply. The proper way to decide if the article is eligible for deletion is an AfD discussion, which is now in place, so everything seems in order.

Just a note, if the AfD results in a deletion and the article is further recreated without addressing the reasons for the original deletion, it can be deleted per the G4 criterion. If it is repeatedly recreated, an administrator may make the judgement call to salt the article to prevent it from being recreated, so this isn't necessarily an endless cycle. Also, if a single editor recreates the article after being warned, they can also be blocked for disruption. -- Atama頭 22:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You edited a page, I did too

Hi, Atama.

I'm a very light Wikipedian and in some of your stuff I see that there are whole genres or categories of Wikipedians that I know nothing about.

You edited a page ("Experience Project") that I also edited. You mentioned that the edited version as you left it required a "more skilled hand" than yours. I thought you did a pretty good job; you seem to have some skill. The page as I left it still could use some work; unless it's a Shakespeare sonnet, I figure there's always room for improvement and better to have 95% of pages 95% perfect than 1% of them 100% perfect.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoHeska (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your compliments. Sadly enough, if there is one skill which I lack despite my best efforts, it's article writing. Which is terrible considering that we're all volunteering at an encyclopedia. I know our policies and guidelines and I spend a lot of time helping editors in disputes but most of the time I feel like the janitor at a prestigious university. I can take pride if I leave a floor shiny but I give the most respect toward those doing the really important work. But I do try, and I'm happy that I was able to help despite my shortcomings. :) For what it's worth, I think you did great as well at the article. -- Atama頭 23:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI award

		The Hitting the Nail on the Head Award
		You have received this prestigious award for your way with words on ANI: "… that the lack of a block is tantamount to an endorsement of their behavior" — exactly, just what I was shooting for, but you put it a lot better! Bishonen | talk 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, I was just reinforcing what you'd pointed out where the editor was practically daring people to block them. -- Atama頭 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829

Hi, Atama,
An editor has repeatedly tried to add a comment to an archived AN/I discussion page. When reverted, he calls the edits vandalism. I'm posting this message to you because I see you keep tabs on AN/I and comment on cases there and I was just hoping to get an admin's opinion on this. I wanted someone to be aware of this edit conflict in case it doesn't die down. I reverted to the original state of the archive page and I won't revert again. If it is re-re-re-re-re-reverted, a warning might be warranted. Thanks! Liz 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep this on my watchlist and try to stay on top of it. In theory, nobody should be editing the archives except for bots or people fixing mistakes or removing sensitive material (which should probably be revdeleted or oversighted anyway, not simply deleted). So this definitely isn't proper. If it happens again, I'll definitely have a talk with this editor, as I'm typing this it appears that they've stopped for now. -- Atama頭 17:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The editor did revert again, and they are sitting at 3 reverts. I reverted back, and warned them that one more revert will lead to a block. I suggested that if they had something to add, that they can start a new discussion at ANI and could quote or copy any information from the original thread that they wanted (which is commonly done at ANI), but that they should notify the other editors being discussed if they do so. -- Atama頭 19:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, I see you're Lizzy's favourite pet. Isn't it funny how she wants to remove pointed criticism of her behaviour? Her removal of comments directed against her and others is against policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. As to being her "pet", I never even heard of Liz before a few days ago, to my recollection. She just happened to ask me for help because we spoke recently. As I told you previously, you're welcome to start a new thread on ANI and bring up the same issues that were in the original ANI complaint, and continue the discussion that way. It's very commonly done. What you can't do is edit archived information; it's archived for a reason. Since you've decided to ignore my warning, and revert yet again, I will block you as I said. -- Atama頭 20:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's rich! I don't have "pets", Barney and I'm no ones pet myself. And, I've read your addition to archived discussion and your words weren't directed at me so I don't think they were "pointed criticism" of my behavior. I've never even made an edit to Rupert Sheldrake, I've only tried to make peace on the article talk page (a futile gesture on my part). While we don't agree, Barney, you know how WP operates and I think you're too smart to try to edit an AN/I archive so I'm not sure what is up with you. It's not like you to persist like this in the face of warnings. I hope all is well with you. Liz 21:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Outing

However my observation is based 100% on reading and observing what the person has done online. I have no indication, other than what they have done in wikipeida, that my supposition may be correct. To call it "outing" makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat what is in our policy:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Misplaced Pages. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages permanently.

If the editor in question did not volunteer that information, you can not make that suggestion. If the editor signed their name, declared that they were the subject of an article, or performed some other action that clearly was a disclosure of their identity, and did not afterward ask for such information to be suppressed, then you can reference it. But if you feel you have a reason to guess a person's identity, you can't do so by our policies. I'm not an oversighter, but I do have revdelete as an admin and often that's enough suppression in a small incident like this one. -- Atama頭 00:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• What is the point of having a policy againt conflict of interest, when any attempt to say that someone has a conflict of interest will be suppressed?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• We don't have a policy against conflicts of interest. We have a guideline with advice (for COI editors and people dealing with COI editors) that suggests how to deal with conflicts of interest. There's a major difference. In any case, I've been working with COI issues for years, and balancing COI concerns with privacy concerns is always a tightrope walk. But it's very possible to work with COI while not outing people, as the outing policy states:

However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums.

It's also appropriate to suggest a person has a COI based on their general editing behavior without having to play guessing games about their identity. Frankly, I have many of the same COI suspicions as you in this case, but again it's inappropriate to speculate about specifics on Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

IP 66.65.150.226

Hello Atama,

a few days ago you blocked this IP 66.65.150.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of continued original research. Almost immidiately after the block expired, the user continued with the objectionable editing behaviour. It seems as if he/she has unfortunately not learned the lesson. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week. If that doesn't work, the next one will be for a month. My hope is that they eventually get the hint that it's not allowed, and they'll stop. -- Atama頭 18:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your quick response on the admin notice board. I appreciate your comments. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wish that I could have offered something more substantive. -- Atama頭 00:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi! Thank you for answering the COIN thread MobiCart in particular, and Jeremy112233 in general. I have more questions for you; I have posted them there. Cheers!

—Unforgettableid (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Groups

Just wanted to know if editors can become parts of groups to make changes to articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan1216 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Adnan1216, yes that is allowed, in fact that is essentially what a WikiProject is. WikiProjects are groups of editors who work together to improve particular types of articles, or to perform particular kinds of tasks. Sometimes groups of editors form together to disrupt Misplaced Pages, and that is called tag-teaming, which is of course not allowed. But the problem in that situation is not the fact that they are acting as a team, it is what they are doing as a team which is disruptive. -- Atama頭 16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Further on ANI

Thanks again for your comments. I think this user has moved on so I am planning to revert back the edits in question. I will let you know if the user comes back to life. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That has all the hallmarks of a blocked sockpuppeteer, User:Generalmesse, you can expect him to spring back to life to edit war every revert and a number of editors to appear and back him up if it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, Generalmesse hasn't been active since 2011 from what I can tell, and that editor was more focused on military history than In Ratio Veritas who seems to be more generalized in scope of interest (actually, none of their edits are military-related). Also, I see a lot of experimentation from this editor which supports the idea that this is a newcomer (like this edit which looks like an attempt to figure out how to use wikiformatting to apply bold text, this isn't something I'd expect from a sockmaster with years of editing experience. -- Atama頭 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Generalmesse had a thing that Italians were under appreciated, put down by an anglocentric world and did not receive due credit. Wasn't too clever at editing and never learnt syntax, may not be the same guy but the modus operandi is strikingly similar. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Atama, I am really grateful.
Best wishes and regards.
Aftab Banoori 14:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftabbanoori (talk • contribs)

Thanks regarding SPI

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks a ton for clearing out the worst backlog since late 2013 nearly singlehandedly. NativeForeigner 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, I'm just trying to keep my mop from gathering dust. -- Atama頭 18:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. While we're at it though, note my results at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Trueblood786 NativeForeigner 18:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... I noticed. Sigh, what a mess. I was wary about doing an unblock already, but this is too much, especially the newly-created sock. I'll get this cleaned up, thank you for your help in this, I think this will help prevent a lot of disruption. -- Atama頭 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Draugr

I happened to see the section at AN/I that has now been archived, and I think that was a premature move. KnutfAen proposed the move on the article talk page on February 16 and did not advertise the discussion anywhere. He then turned up at AN/I on February 26 to request assistance with implementing the move. Consensus had not been given a chance to be established; the discussion was never even evaluated by anyone neutral. I strongly suggest reverting the move and advertising the discussion at the relevant WikiProject and to editors who have previously edited the article. I've presented a counter-argument on the article talk page, so I will not now touch it myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to move it back, it's up to you to provide consensus. The appropriate place to begin any discussion regarding an article is the article's talk page, that is what the discussion page is there for. There is no need to advertise a discussion beyond the article's talk page unless a dispute arises that needs more eyes. KnutfAen did the exact correct thing; they proposed the move suggestion on the talk page of the article, and waited for a longer than necessary time before trying to implement the move. They then took it to a public noticeboard for assistance. Before implementing the move, I looked at the original discussion that led to it being listed at Draugr, and noted that the discussion was a consensus to merge the Draug and Draugr articles, but there was no real agreement on which of the two names to pick for the article, so this move wasn't even overturning an older consensus. The article uses "draug" as the primary term throughout the body, only using the term "draugr" once (explained as an alternative name in the lead, given only as much attention as draugar, dreygur, draugen, or aptrganga) aside from a couple of mentions in the "Popular Culture" section. It looked like a common-sense move to rename the article. So again, if you want it moved back, start a discussion on the talk page. -- Atama頭 16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe you've failed to notice this edit by the user requesting the move, which replaces the Old Norse form (draugr, plural draugar) with draug (given an English plural draugs) throughout the article. What happened was: a user proposed a move, and failed to advertise the discussion. After minimal participation and two weeks, the same user declared the move discussion over and went to AN/I requesting it be implemented. This is a (presumably unintended) end run around the consensus process, and the same user's editing the article to reflect his preferred form of the word should not weigh in the decision. I don't believe a new discussion to change consensus is required here; the move should be reverted as based on a misunderstanding, consensus had not been reached for it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I did miss that. I don't believe that the article needs to be moved back, again as I stated before there was no end run around the consensus process. The move request should probably have been done at Requested Moves, but there was no indication that the move would be controversial so that wasn't a necessity. Again, I see no prior consensus that the Old Norse form was preferred. There should be no harm in leaving it as-is until the conclusion of a discussion, and I'm definitely not going to go through the trouble to move it again (without consensus) just to possibly have it moved back again to Draug (if consensus ends up preferring that term). You can continue the discussion that was already begun at the article talk page (I see you have at least one other editor agreeing with you) and if you want to advertise it to gather a firm consensus, you can do so via RfC. Or, start up a discussion at Requested Moves which is more formal. I have no personal objection to the move, but it makes no sense to move it yet again before any discussion takes place, because the move is certainly controversial (KnutfAen wants it at Draug while others disagree). -- Atama頭 18:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of how policy applies here - KnutfAen proposed a controversial move, the location of the merged article at Draugr can and should be taken as prior consensus. It will involve a lot more fuss, move-wise, if it has to be re-moved rather than simply reverted, and the run to AN/I was, in my view, an end run around consensus formation (although I'll say again, perhaps inadvertent): there was no "incident" except impatience to have their viewpoint implemented. However I see it implied at Misplaced Pages:Requested move#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves that move discussions usually only run for 7 days with possible relisting, like AfDs; I had thought they ran for a month like merger discussions, and that shorter expected duration makes the editor's impatience more understandable. Since you decline to revert the move, I'll reopen discussion and advertise it as the editor should in my view have done. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem. There is no "revert" on a move, it has to be re-moved. It's not like reverting to an old revision of an article, it will require deleting both Draugr and Talk:Draugr, performing a move, making sure everything looks right, etc. And again, the original move as done was not controversial because there was no objection to it at the time, but moving it back is controversial because there is a dispute. And just to reassure you, I'm not making a determination which is the "correct" name for the article (nor did I when I moved it before), it doesn't matter much to me whether there is an "r" at the end of the name or not. If it looks like you've established an informal consensus on the talk page of the article you can leave me a message and if it looks to me like there's a consensus I'll move it again, I have no problem with that. If you also need help mediating the dispute, I'd be happy to help there too, just let me know. -- Atama頭 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I realize the technical issues and have the tools to deal with them, but since you are speaking of consensus - I believe in error - the new discussion is now rolling. (And I did the notifying I believe should have originally been done; I hope neutrally.) We've had some off-wiki canvassing by KnutfAen; you may want to keep an eye on the discussion in light of that. I have welcomed the two users concerned and FWIW see no need for a sockpuppet investigation as one participant has suggested. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I am indeed keeping an eye on things, and as I said before as an impartial observer I'm happy to implement whatever the result of the discussion is. So far everything you've done looks proper and I'll intervene if things get out of hand. I also agree that an SPI probably isn't needed, by KnutfAen's own words there is probable canvassing and/or meatpuppetry going on here, but the SPI is filed anyway (I'm watching that SPI too). I'm definitely going to have a talk with KnutfAen about this. Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. -- Atama頭 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Cholensky

Hello, I am contacting you regarding the deletion of the page: Stephanie Cholensky, the notability reason being that she is the co-chair of a national political party (Socialist Party USA). I also put in a request for undeletion, I wasn't sure at the time how to contact you directly. Could you elaborate on the reason for deletion? Thanks!

-RS Szepasszony (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The deletion was a proposed deletion. The way a proposed deletion process works is this... An editor determines that an article doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, and leaves a tag on the article which indicates their concern and their desire for deletion. The tag stays on the article for 7 days, in which time anyone can object to the deletion for any reason and remove the tag, which makes any deletion of the article controversial, and makes the article ineligible for proposed deletion (either at that time or any later date). If, after 7 days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion, then an administrator will evaluate the article and make sure that nobody has yet objected to deletion and check to see if the proposed deletion rationale seems credible. If so, then the article is deleted. The article can be restored upon request by anyone.

In this particular case, the claim was that the article subject lacks notability. Notability on Misplaced Pages is commonly determined by finding significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I saw that such coverage was not established in the article, and when I looked online for a quick check I didn't find anything either. So I deleted the article.

Now that you've requested that the article be restored, I'll do so, it's as simple as that! Just note that the same concerns that led to its proposed deletion will be unaddressed, and it's very possible that the article will be subject to a deletion discussion, so my suggestion is to try to find more sources giving coverage of the subject. Good sources include major newspapers, magazines, or books, and significant coverage would include an entire article or any other significant portion of text covering her, not just a passing mention. -- Atama頭 18:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Help on BLP issue please

Hi, I saw that you are editing recently and hope you would have a look at Talk:Murry_Salby#Protected_edit_request_on_4_March_2014. It's to add non-contentious content onto the short article, which everyone agrees is weighted too heavily with negative content. Any help appreciated. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the edit request, I see that nobody else has commented on it either though. I'm not comfortable stepping into this dispute and inserting information unilaterally, however innocuous it may appear, but I'll ask on the talk page and see if anyone objects. -- Atama頭 22:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard not to be jaded here … but it seems people are much more invested in parsing scandal than doing the most basic first steps. Each article grows a bit differently I guess! Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for doing the first part. I'm hoping you'll look again at completing the request. All the boiling over and sniping concerns other facets of what potentially, and might be reported, and has nothing to do with the edit request. Everyone agrees that the mostly negative tone has to be fixed, yet seem reluctant to do anything but argue about other more controversial potential aspects. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not my place to honor the second request. I'm not a "superuser" or anything, and it would be abuse of my tools to make a decision in favor on one editor's proposed change to edit the article when there are so many other editors debating. Keep in mind that some of those editors are also administrators (Drmies, MastCell, TenOfAllTrades), and if taking unilateral action to use the tools to implement one person's idea of the proper way to edit the article was okay, one of them would have done so. -- Atama頭 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Fairness and compassion

Hi Atama, I know this is very late but I wanted to thank you for your participation in my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and its that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back. So, thank you for your participation and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to continuing to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, I was just speaking my mind honestly as best as I could there. -- Atama頭 21:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Abuse response

I see you are closing all the open cases at WP:Abuse response. Has there been some discussion about winding up this project? and if so would you please provide a link. SpinningSpark 02:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

SpinningSpark, the discussion occurred at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Category:Abuse response - Waiting for Investigation and the open cases were from 2012. The project itself was marked inactive in fall 2013 via a discussion on WP:AN. Liz 02:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the discussion about winding up old cases because the project is closed, but it is not the discussion which decided to close the project. Who decided the project was no longer useful? SpinningSpark 04:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Abuse response -- Atama頭 04:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's really a pity; it means we have nowhere else to go with troublesome IPs, other than ever longer blocks. But if the ISPs are mostly ignoring us then there is no point wasting anyone's time over it. SpinningSpark 02:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SpinningSpark, I brought it to AN with the hopes of drafting more people work on cases. But a) none of the volunteers for the project were still around (they didn't respond to my talk page messages) and b) the editors who recalled the process thought writing to ISPs wasn't a very productive activity in terms of results. Liz 03:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheley Colorado Camps

Back in 2008 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. (Actually, you PROD2-ed it, but the original PRODder is not very active currently). Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Thanks, wow that's from over 4 years ago! If someone wants to take a crack at it to expand it and show notability, more power to them. I appreciate the notification. -- Atama頭 17:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Recently deleted article

You recently deleted an article called Kamie Jimmie King due to its lack of notability and the likelihood that it was an autobiography. I just thought that you would be interested to know that the author, User:Kamie256, (who has now created a user page containing the same material as the article), almost instantly recreated it. G S Palmer (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it, then salted it so that it couldn't be recreated by a non-autoconfirmed editor. Just a note, G4 is only for pages deleted through a discussion (like AfD) and not CSDs, but I deleted it per A7, the same criterion as last time. -- Atama頭 01:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Diversity Paradox

Hi Atama, The Diversity Paradox has been dePRODed or restored. Could you please restore its talk page, too? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@DASonnenfeld: I suppose I can, though if I do so then the article page history should also be restored. This isn't normal process, if an article deleted by PROD is recreated, typically we just treat it as a new article with the same name as the previous one. Nothing at WP:PROD suggesting restoring anything to a page (or its associated talk page) when someone recreates it, it only suggests restoring a page if a request is made at WP:REFUND. I typically restore a deleted PROD on request, no questions asked, but this is a different situation because there is an article there.

What I'm going to do is this... I'll restore the article's history, and the talk page. I can do so by my own judgment, as suggested by the PROD policy, An administrator may decide on their own to restore an article that has been deleted after a proposed deletion without having to make the request at Requests for undeletion. However, I will do so because having the entire history available will be of more value at AfD, which I intend to file shortly. There were compelling arguments for deletion on the talk page of the article prior to its PROD deletion and I think having the full article history available to regular editors will be of assistance in the discussion. -- Atama頭 15:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. The new version is, in my reading of it, a thinly veiled promotion of one particular author's work. Many scholars have worked in the area, but a reader would not know this from the article. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's more-or-less what I'm basing my deletion discussion propoal on. If the article is kept, it should be changed to reflect a more balanced viewpoint. Just FYI, if you plan to rewrite or correct it yourself, or with the assistance of others who want to correct the article, I'll hold off on any AfD. Just let me know. -- Atama頭 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I'm not planning to rewrite it; in my view it is flawed from the start. I would be happy to comment on the AfD. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Once I get it started, you'll be one of the editors I notify (including of course the article creator and other significant contributors). -- Atama頭 18:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all your good work at AN/I recently. I nearly always find your contributions pithy, thoughtful and clueful. John (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)