User talk:Atama/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Hoping for help

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 Those opposed to any inclusion originally made incorrect appeals to WP:V and WP:RS and WP:CON, and declared the discussion "closed".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

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

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

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

Chabad on Wikipedia arbitration request

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

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

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

Arbitration case opens/Chabad movement

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

Keepin Busy? :-)

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

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

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

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

History of Terrorism

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

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

ANI notice

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

Thanks for your input

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

Thanks for your comments

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

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

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

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:PLAXICO

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

COI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation for Longevity Myths

Mediation at Longevity myths

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

Greetings,

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

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

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

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

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

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

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

RfA

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

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

Highgrove Luxury Condominiums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gibraltar an idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need Your Help

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

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

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

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

RfC: Self-government

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

In an attempt to end the madness, I've made a proposal that I think covers things, take look at the talk page and see if you agree with my wording. --Gibnews (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Chapman Waste Disposal

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

Nationality Profiling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COI

Hi, I was about to post the following:

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

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

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

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

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

My RfA

Hello Atama. Since you correctly opposed my RfA based on my limited experience of speedy deletions I have been trying to rectify this. I have made many more edits since then. I would appreciate any feedback and advice that you may have on this issue. I am also requesting advice from SoWhy, an editor with whom I have had some contact in the past. Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhh

Atama, could you please explain to Imalbornoz, the difference between correcting an error and refactoring an RFC. He has chosen to completely refactor the RFC proposal, whenever I try to correct it he edit wars to return it. The RFC question is now completely different from that originally proposed. When I in good faith tried to explain this to him, well see here "cachondo mental"! means funny guy, ie a piss taker, clearly he isn't taking the comments in good faith. This is just getting ridiculous. Justin talk 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Justin, you shouldn't have corrected anything in the RfC in the first place. An RfC on a talk page is essentially a statement or post from an editor. It's much like any other comment from an editor; after all, the person who creates the RfC is supposed to sign it to mark it as their own words. Per WP:TPO, you should not edit other editors' comments except in specific circumstances as listed in the guideline. Fixing what you perceive as a factual inaccuracy is not allowed, even fixing a typo from another editor's comment isn't allowed. If you disagree with something that Imalbornoz stated in the RfC, either state your objection in the discussion of the RfC or ask Imalbornoz to fix it himself, and even if he fixes it, he should do so with a strikethrough and not totally remove it. Otherwise it can potentially cause confusion if anyone who has already responded to the RfC has referred to the portion of text that was corrected. Keep in mind that changing another editor's message is a potentially blockable offense, though in this case I'm sure you didn't realize that. -- Atama頭 23:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

About the only thing you should really be touching at all is links. If they make a spelling error, that's their problem, but fixing links is allowed (provided you're actually fixing the link, of course). HalfShadow 23:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I think you may have misunderstood, Guy missed one of the links that were used in the edit so I added it. He also included a link that wasn't so I struck through it. In both cases I attached a note saying I'd done it. If I've crossed a line it was inadvertent and out of ignorance but in my defence I didn't change the RFC. Imalbornoz has been totally refactored the RFC, adding his own comments and opinions. You try and tell him anything and he immediately assumes bad faith and accuses me of doing the same thing when I haven't and he has done so since the day he joined. Justin talk 08:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I would fix it back to the way it was but I just know based on past interactions with him, he'll edit war to turn it back and if I try and explain where and what I did wrong it'll be taken the wrong way. Yes I know you're going to say I should assume good faith but I know he won't. Justin talk 09:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see... Guy was the one who created the RfC, not Imalbornoz. I should have known that. What I said still applies, but I'll have to leave the same message for Imalbornoz. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Atama頭 17:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I can only say I'm sorry, I didn't know it was wrong (I saw it being done so I thought it was OK), and please tell me if I can do anything to compensate what I've done. Thank you for the informal warning. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I guess since the "cat's out of the bag" the best thing to do is just leave it alone. The more anyone messes with the RfC, either to make further changes or to change it back, the worse it becomes. To be fair there really should be a reminder at WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding that people should not refactor RfCs. I'll start a discussion on the talk page, and if nobody objects I'll add that language myself. I am sure that both you and Justin did everything in good faith, and I'm definitely not concerned about what you did. -- Atama頭 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to mediation. Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. :) -- Atama頭 06:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA

I'm not going to bother with RFA again. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with you. At my RFA, the support percentage never dropped below 89%, well above the discretionary area for success. And yet I was anxious all week, worried that at any moment a bunch of people would oppose me and kill it. Even though I didn't really care all that much about adminship, I wasn't sure if I really wanted to be an admin and had plenty of stuff to do on Wikipedia without having the tools. Now that I have them, I'm glad I went through with it because being able to see deleted contributions helps a ton at WP:COIN where I hang out, as well as being able to block obvious spammers reported there, and now I can delete pages at PROD rather than just evaluate them. I personally think you'd do well as an admin, but that's because you already do plenty as a non-admin. -- Atama頭 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

There is no easy conjunction in our edit histories which explains my contacting you. I reach out, in part, because of the nuanced reasoning which informed your comments here. In the months since I created Teachable moment, the topic has taken on an unanticipated personal relevance. I wonder if you might consider joining other co-mentors in a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

I am sending you an e-mail as well. Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page --Tenmei (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks regarding ANI

Though I didn't especially merit any support, I'd just like to thank you for your cogent comments in the ANI dealing with me. And I got the trout. -- spin^control 05:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw a good recipe for grilled trout with parsley, garlic, rosemary, and basil that would be particularly tasty. No worries, I thought people were treating you unfairly for what was an acknowledged mistake. -- Atama頭 17:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, Atama. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incivility blocks

Hey Atama, just letting you know that we finally have some proposed text for the incivility policy proposal, which can be found here. I was wondering if you would be interested in commenting on this? We are looking for some feedback. Incidentally, I totally agree with your comments about the difficulty of balancing the conflicting needs of editors who produce quality work but are irrascible contributors and those editors who aren't so skilled but are polite and inoffensive, who may get upset by the more actions of the more skilled editors. Not an easy thing to get right I'm afraid :( Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's fantastic. There's a lot to read over but I'm glad you're doing this and it's getting support. I'll give my input once I sift through everything. Thanks for the note! -- Atama頭 17:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

You're under no obligation to respond of course, but I've replied to you in the course of this discussion. A response may be helpful. JBsupreme (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Atama-san, thanks for sharing your experience. Its strange and unsettling to be formally accused of doing something you would never even think of. I expect the matter to be cleared up shortly. Meanwhile, I appreciate your vote of confidence and reassurance. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I just didn't want you worrying unnecessarily. It's not the accusation that matters, it's the result. -- Atama頭 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Plaxico

Wikipedia:Plaxico, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Plaxico during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitAnode 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected your user page

Just to inform you I have protected your user page for 24 hours to try put off the block-evading IPs who continually vandalise it. Feel free to undo prior to the expiry as you see fit. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I think 24 hours will probably be sufficient. I guess I wouldn't be much of an admin if I wasn't under attack from someone every once in awhile. -- Atama頭 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stern Talking To From Jimbo

I've posted on Jimbo's talk page regarding: [2]

Wikipedia does not exist to make people feel bad - shame on you! How would you like if they had a Wikipedia policy using your name regarding something dumb you had done?144.189.100.25 (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not Jimbo, and I'm not a celebrity serving jail time for shooting myself with an illegal handgun. Your ire should be directed toward the media and the Wikipedia community who have made the meme popular. -- Atama頭 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IP editor - It's up for MFD already. No need to complain about it here or at Jimbo's page.  7  00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Noindex

Thanks for being open minded about all of this. On a related issue, I see that you already have the noindex template in there but it doesn't appear to be working because googling the effect has this essay as #1 search result. I manually added the magic word as well (I know, repetitively redundant) - but if you have any other ideas to keep it out of the headlines until the MFD is decided please let me know. Thanks.  7  02:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that savvy about getting things removed from search engines. I believe that it isn't being indexed, but Google search results are cached so it doesn't have an immediate effect. The noindex template was only put up after the MFD was opened. I'm going to try to get the cache cleared using Google's webmaster tools, we'll see if it works. -- Atama頭 16:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An update: I submitted the request, saying that the page has been blocked from indexing already using metatags, and the result was...

Pending removal requests will be processed as soon as possible. Successful webpage removal requests will show a status of "Removed" and will be excluded from Google search results for 90 days. Successful SafeSearch removals will be excluded from Google SafeSearch results entirely. If your request is denied, click on the "Learn more" link for detailed information about why the removal was unsuccessful.

So we'll see! -- Atama頭 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  7  02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An update, with good and bad news (if anyone is checking). If you look at Google, the essay no longer appears. But the talk page still does. What this tells me is that a noindex template takes a long time to remove a page from Google's cache, but requesting removal is effective. I assume the talk page will vanish eventually, but to be safe I'll try to do the same thing to the talk page that I did to the main page. I would have done this before but I didn't know that it was necessary. -- Atama頭 21:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(Final?) Update: The talk page doesn't appear either on a Google search. Googling "Plaxico Effect" doesn't bring up any Wikipedia pages. -- Atama頭 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiLove

Hello, Atama. I placed a heart on your user page as a way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't want the heart on your user page, feel free to remove it. Thank you. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 03:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! Especially with Valentine's Day coming up. :) -- Atama頭 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Essay

If you are concerned that your essay could get deleted, you could probably move it to your userspace and rewrite it to comply with the BLP policy. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 04:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually have an alternative at User:Atama/Sandbox, which doesn't even mention Plaxico's name or relate to him in any way. I linked to that in the MFD, and gave that as an alternative. I don't see more than one person supporting that change, however, so it's probably a moot point. If the MFD ends with a "delete" result, as I expect it will, I'll just let it stay deleted (and I'll delete the sandbox page as well). I honestly don't really mind if people want it gone, actually the last thing I want is to write an essay that the community dislikes, so I'm happy to see it deleted if that's what people want. As I said before, my whole goal in creating the essay was a convenience for people who were linking to a (then) non-existent Wikipedia space entry "WP:PLAXICO". I personally am not a huge fan of the meme, or at least its use on Wikipedia, because I don't think it's wholly accurate. When people invoke "Plaxico", they do so when an editor's complaint actually gets themselves in trouble, but Burress not only didn't complain to the police, he actually turned himself in peacefully when he saw that he was wanted. So I honestly don't take any of this essay business personally. -- Atama頭 16:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal

You have a detractor, it seems--look at the history of User:Atama/User/Barnstar, User:Atama/User/Box, and User:Atama/User/Stuff. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Does that block evader ever stop? If you spot an IP in the 123.27 range making such edits to Atama's pages or Joe Chill's pages, please report them to any admin, as they are evading their block and thus can be reblocked quickly. --Taelus (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks, I appreciate the help. This is new for me, I've never had someone attacking me like this. I guess it all comes with the territory, huh? :) -- Atama頭 16:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See the quote from User:Kelapstick on my user page...welcome to the club! Drmies (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar again

I responded to your RfC on this page. I have gone through a fairly comprehensive review of the arguments for and against the inclusion of one specific phrase and think it fair to say that I have achieved practically no progress towards any consensus. If anything positions have hardened.

I feel that we need an administrator to look at the current process and comment/act as required. If you can either intervene once more, or suggest another suitable administrator to leap into the lion's den, this may be helpful. This diff may be relevant. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You may note the allegation "There are still editors who object to any mention of San Roque on grounds which I find not relevant to Wikipedia." which happens to be a) untrue and b) not objective or even handed, which Richard has declined to refactor on request. Justin talk 16:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin, perhaps we could continue this discussion on my user page, or on the talk page for Gibraltar? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I've followed your conversation and it seems reasonable from both sides; Richard may have misunderstood Justin's views, with Justin trying to clarify. -- Atama頭 21:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please look at Gibraltar again, that edit is being imposed on the article, there has been edit warring by a tag team to impose it. Not one person has actually addressed the argument, it appears that its a case of shut up there are more of us. Is the way that consensus is achieved? Justin talk 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skillstrain

You might want to take a look at what I've done here and see if you still vote delete. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping COI accusations a flyin'

Hi Atama, I found you to be quite helpful at level-headed approaches to COI issues. Could you take a peek at Tree shaping? Two, or more, editors are accusing each other of COI and it's spilled over to a post at WP:CNB which I tried to answer simply from a content approach. However, there does seem to be an already heated up brew bubbling at the article and talkpage. Any help appreciated, I didn't want to just send them to COIN or ANI but if that's best then so be it. -- Banjeboi 12:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll look, there's a report at COIN already but I haven't addressed it yet. Thanks for the note, I'll see if there's anything I can do to help. -- Atama頭 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything at COIN, am I missing it? In any case Silktork has stepped in a bit so I'll try to get all concerned to use the article talkpage unless intervention is needed. -- Banjeboi 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. It was archived already. -- Banjeboi 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a mediation request for that article, I'm taking the case and I'll see if mediation can help solve the problem. -- Atama頭 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought they were doing better! Good luck and let me know if you'd like any assistance. -- Banjeboi 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected your user page and subpages for 1 week

That block evader won't give up, so I protected your user page and three subpages for a week as those are the targets each time they gets a new IP. Hopefully this will convince them to find something else to do with their time. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Hutch48

Has been indef blocked. Since then an anonymous Australian IP has been trolling the talk page of Open Watcom Assembler and vandalizing my user page. Pcap ping 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've semi-protected your user page for 3 days, hopefully that's enough to convince him to buzz off. -- Atama頭 11:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Pcap ping 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy mediation

Hello,

I really don't know what to tell you about the BHRT page - the two other disputants, Hillinpa and Riverpa, have not edited in a while (more than a month for the former, and a couple weeks for the latter). Chances are if they return to the BHRT page they will still disagree with the current content, but right now there isn't an active dispute. User:Literaturegeek has been contributing to the content and talk page, which may be responsible for the decline in active disagreements, but without an explicit statement from the other editors I can't tell you what is wrong with the page or how it should be changed. Thanks for the offer and would certainly welcome any suggestions you might have about how to proceed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I thought much the same thing actually when I saw that the editors hadn't edited in awhile (more than a month for Hillinpa) but I felt it was better to check anyway. I'll mark the mediation request as stale if I don't hear anything soon from either of them. -- Atama頭 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Atama. I have great respect for your judgement and comments so I am commenting here. I am linking you to the TM sock puppet case so you can if you have the interest look at the situation yourself. [3]. For some reason the IPs from the small town of Fairfield Iowa and the IPs from the university are similar. Neither is the TM organization although the university has associations with organization. I am neither a sock puppet nor a meat puppet. Probably the fact that I am telling you this is a justifiable frustration with information that is not accurate. Anyway I wanted to clarify comments made on the COI page.(olive (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

There still have been no checkuser results yet. Keep in mind that a CU can do more than simply see what IP address an editor used, they can also see information like what computer (MAC address I assume) and what browser an editor uses. If it can be found that editors are sharing a computer, that is almost a clincher that they are sock or meatpuppets. As to IP similarity, that is less clear as you said. It has already been suggested that the case be brought to the Arbitration Committee, and I think that would be a good idea, to settle things. Keep in mind that ArbCom may also bring sanctions against anti-TM editors also, so it might not be a bad thing for you and others who support TM. -- Atama頭 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Had I known you were keeping up with the situation I probably wouldn't have commented here seeming to bias you in anyway. But thanks for your measured, kind, and objective response to my somewhat emotional comments. There hasn't been much of that in my Wikipedia dealings lately. And yes, arbitration will be a good thing. At least editors there have a chance to fairly defend themselves. (olive (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

No worries, it's not like I've participated a lot in the discussion so I'm not surprised you didn't know I've been following it. I hope that the issue can be settled properly before long, I know that this dispute has been ongoing for a long time and I'd like to see people get back to improving the articles. -- Atama頭 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

mike734

Atama, not sure how/where to respond to you. Thank you for your support. Mike Mike734 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Either place is fine, and you're quite welcome. -- Atama頭 01:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Farewell

Anyway I have decided to quit wikipedia, I just can't work for this project anymore. It stopped being fun a long time ago. Before I went I wanted to say thank you to a few people who genuinely tried to be even handed. Cheers. Justin talk 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but gone less than 24 hrs and dragged back as I see Red Hat is using AN/I to settle old scores with Gibnews. Gibnews is not Gibraltarian and Red Hat is well aware of that, he made an SPI check before. Gibraltarian still edits using IP addresses, this is a clear case of working the system to settle old scores. Gibnews might have the computer skills to rig an IP proxy, Gibraltarian was too stupid to do it and Red Hat knows that. Gibnews and Red Hat have a long and acrimonius history, Red Hat is simply working the system and is more adroit at the politics. I know you're fair minded, please could you do something about it. Justin talk 09:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said to you on your talk page (which you reverted, so I'll post here instead), this [4] and this [5] are more than enough to get you a block. Please note that I have refrained from replying to your comments at WP:ANI. I do not "settle scores". Gibnews has clearly flouted the rules in a major way. All he had to do was retract his legal threats and he could continue editing, yet he has not chosen to do so. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to post those messages at AN/I, when you do please do include the implicit threat of seeking a block of my account. People who know me and have worked with me, know those comments are out of character. You are settling old scores, you're just better at working the system. Justin talk 11:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Those very offensive comments ("fascist irredentist dreams", "a fascist racist agenda" and -especially- "I don't see any difference between you and that Fascist fuckwit"[6]) were directed at me (this is not the first time: he has repeatedly blanked or edited my comments in article talk pages[7][8], accused me of sock- and meat-puppetry[9][10], accused me and other editors of disruptive editing MANY times[11], vandalised my talk page[12]...) I admit I have discussed with him in a charged atmosphere, but always trying to respect him. In spite of that, from his continuing attitude towards me and from his comments, he seems to think that I am advancing some kind of nationalist agenda or something very bizarre like that.

After his last attack, I decided not to take any action in the hope that Justin would take a break and come back to WP with a more balanced attitude (and asked him to do so[13], I mean I asked him to come back and to do so with a more balanced attitude, he had already announced he was leaving). But not only he has not taken a wikibreak but is now asking to block other editors with the same aggresive attitude. I don't know what to do, Atama. Should I go to AN/I? Should I ask someone else to tell him something? (he has forbidden me from his talk page). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Still trying to get me blocked Imalbornoz, that'll make your 5th or is it 6th attempt? You go to AN/I again if you like but as soon as Gibnews is unblocked and can defend himself I'm outta here. As someone commented on my page your agenda is clear and chickens come home to roost eventually. Justin talk 12:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin, calm down. I have not once tried to get you blocked (any diffs?). But now I will probably try to do something about your attitude. It's getting worse and worse. Justin, please, talk to me in my page: it's more effective and Atama will have a more peaceful talkpage (myself, I apologize; but I can't answer in Justin's page) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

An Aside

I've explained why I'm quitting and made an apology for the remarks I made here. I think I've also figured out what I did wrong with wikibreak enforcer and will set it on long term block so I can make a clean break. There is a lot wrong on the Gibraltar article and soemthing really needs to be done about it. I don't think I'm too wrong about people usually and I kind of get the impression you're a person with the integrity to do something about it. Apologies for cluttering up your talk page. Farewell. If you ever wish to get in touch, my email address is enabled. Justin talk 16:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words, and honestly if Wikipedia is getting you riled up a break is a good idea. Really, this place isn't worth it. I hope you come back someday, when the mood strikes you. If you do, maybe you could think about working on articles that aren't prone to a ton of drama? (If that exists.) Take care of yourself Justin. -- Atama頭 16:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation

Atama/Archive 5 - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Zengzhi Li

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zengzhi Li, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zengzhi Li. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

NerdyScienceDude has given you a cookie!

NerdyScienceDude has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Atama,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For Vote 2, I !voted for a 90% upper threshold. I felt that if 90% or more of the participants felt that the admin deserved to have the bit removed at the end of the CDA discussion period, that it should count as an automatic desysop. I apologize if I was too ambiguous in my original comment at the poll. -- Atama頭 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo

Hi Atama - Think you meant RFA instead of AFD here. Too many acronyms and abbreviations.  ;)  7  00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, too many acronyms. Le sigh. It's even archived now so I can't fix my boneheadedness. Oh well, thanks for pointing it out, I'll keep it in mind in the future to avoid other slips. :) -- Atama頭 19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on WP:AN/I

So there's 57 states in the US of A? Counting Hawaii & Canada gets us to 51, so what are the other six? Puerto Rico, Iraq, Israel, East Dakota, Upstate New York, & Hollywood? -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke, referring to this. :) -- Atama頭 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I knew you were joking -- although I didn't catch the allusion. My comment above was just an attempt to keep the joke going. (Although it might earn us some goodwill if we signed an agreement with the citizens of Iraq that they could vote in any future presidential election when a member of the Bush family was a candidate. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi. I've tried to address some of the concerns you raised on my RfA. If you get the time to have a look at what I've said then I'd be grateful. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks! Though archiving the noticeboard is not necessarily a bad thing :) --RegentsPark (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, well it would reduce the drama quotient on Wikipedia quite a bit at least. -- Atama頭 22:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For anyone checking, why I blocked User:A306200130048123

I recently blocked User:Jack Quinn UK as a sockpuppet of User:Mcjakeqcool. That was as obvious a case of sockpuppetry as I've seen, as "Jack" had at one point posted the email address of "Jake" as his own in a talk page conversation. His only defense against that was to declare, lamely, that he had "no email address".

Jack was keenly interested in the essay, Give 'em enough rope (a somewhat obscure essay that was only created a couple of weeks ago). On his talk page he'd asked twice to be unblocked per that essay, and you'll see he participated on the talk page of the essay prior to his block.

A306200130048123 then was created. They created a user page which was similar to the user page for Jack (note they are both in the UK, just like Jake), and posted their email address at a hotmail.co.uk address just like Jack and Jake. They then edited Lucas Johnson, an article that Jack had interest in, and posted about Give 'em rope. Clearly this is the same person again. So consider this before you unblock. I did not bother with WP:SPI because it's backlogged currently and I don't want to waste a checkuser's valuable time on a really obvious case. -- Atama頭 17:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

Since you blocked me without enough evidence (You blocked me for suggesting a map that is very popular among a lot of users, and that was suggested by Cosialscastells, but I never vandalised, I was not focused on the Spanish empire, but in a lot of subjects, and my first edits are clearly that of a new user) I've been forced to upload my full name to Wikipedia. Cosials and Castells are both Catalan surnames. I've uploaded a video to Youtube showing my ID card and other official documents to show that my name includes Enrique and Goñi, which, curiously, is the name of my account Enriquegoni (without the forbidden letter ñ). My name does not include Cosials or Castells, which obviously was the name of the blocked user, since Cosialscastells hasn't got any meaning. Send friend request to Fireinthegol (youtube account) to see the video and check the evidence. You can check that Cosials is a surname by typing it in google. I also sent you an e-mail. When you check my decisive evidence, can you unblock me? or do I have to upload my full family data and photographs? 83.32.97.46 (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Atama: I have to say, a message like this strikes me as totally out of character if it was Cosialscastells. It's possible it was a coincidence, and I was too quick to judge (and influence your opinion). Perhaps an unblock might be in order... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if he is from Telefonica, but having a Catalan surnames, he is probably from Catalonia, I am not. Telefonica is used by 47 million users. I am not a map obsessed only, check this: [[14]], I wanted to work out the article. I don't really know the Cosialcastells case but what I have to say is that maybe we had the same objective regarding the map, but did not use the same proceedings. I never touched the Spanish empire map. I only tried to reach consensous, and I think that I used a respectful stance. I really think that the map should adress the Spanish severe influence on Patagonia in another colour, it is just an opinion. It may be biased since I am spanish. But I am not a vandal. I made a lot of contributions on multiple subjects during my first 4 months here. I was not only focused on the Spanish Empire. At first I was really infuriated by the block but now I think that if I am blocked, seeing my contributions and my respectful stance almost always, and other users use arguments based on 3rd world countries and are not even warned, then something is wrong about Wikipedia. 83.32.97.46 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I'll do. Since Red Hat of Pat Ferrick is speaking in favor of unblocking you, I'll do so. I've had my doubts anyway and have been considering an unblock. My decision to block was also colored by what I saw as very divisive participation at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, which I found disturbing. But I'll unblock for now, since it's possible that I've made a mistake with the sockpuppetry declaration. -- Atama頭 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To add to that, I'd suggest someone in your shoes should now be bending over backwards to avoid any possible future sockpuppetry misunderstandings, so no more editing from multiple accounts please. If you are really serious, stick to one account and build up history and trust with other editors. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I am new, I didn't know that it was so serious to have 2 accounts. I never used them simultaneously. Its not until you have problems that you learn. But Red Hat of Pat, you had no evidence to accuse me. There are methods like cookies that could in part solve this problem without disturbing users so much. About gibraltar, yes I had a bad attitude but it was because the article was objectively very biased, and they didn't let me change it, after I recognised my mistake. Yes, you cannot answer a bad attitude with another bad attitude. Fireinthegol (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've removed the sockpuppet templates from your old account and adjusted the block on it to let anyone reviewing know that it is not considered a sockpuppet of a blocked user. I have still left it blocked, because neither you nor anyone else should need it anymore now that you have a new account. But since you've properly connected your new account to your old one, I didn't want any hints of sockpuppetry there prejudice anyone against you. I'm sorry you've gone through all the trouble you've been through this past day or so, but the evidence seemed pretty damning to me. Anyway, good luck, and I hope your future experiences on Wikipedia are more pleasant. -- Atama頭 02:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin

As one of the few people he seems to listen to, would you be able to have a word with him on his talk page? He's returned from his self-imposed wikibreak but is still dispensing the insults [15]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But of course that was in no way provoked by yourself was it Red Hat, it was never your intention to provoke a response and run away to a convenient admin saying Justin is being beastly again? Coincidentally just shortly after I said I'd be away for a few days. Mmm, you haven't been that subtle that people don't see through you. Justin talk 01:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say, calling someone a "wind up merchant" is really just another way of saying that a person is trying to perpetuate a dispute. So it's not too terribly uncivil. At the same time, there are much more diplomatic ways of saying so, and picking the words "wind up merchant" seem to be trying to wind someone up as well. All that I'm saying is that if you feel that the person you're in a discussion with is trying to escalate the drama level, don't let them. You can say something like, "I'm not going to respond to that insult" or the like, but it doesn't make sense to respond to a person trying to inflame a dispute by telling them that they're out to inflame the dispute in a way that will inflame the dispute. -- Atama頭 01:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the instruction to me, in the edit comment and in the edit itself to "swivel". There's no justification for this kind of language towards another editor at all, whatever our content disagreements may be. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that I'm American and have no idea what "swivel" might be in slang, or that it even was a slang term at all. -- Atama頭 01:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, in Britain, you say "swivel" while holding up your middle finger at someone. [16] I can assure you that, were you to do this in any bar in the UK, the next step would be that you would have your face punched. I've noticed that in the USA, they go so far as to pixel out the middle finger when it appears in films shown on cable, so I hope that conveys the rudeness level. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I did some more research of my own, and apparently "swivel" used to mean "sexual intercourse" back in the 1300s according to Dictionary.com so the slang term is no longer a surprise. That puts his comment in a new light. -- Atama頭 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Swivel also refers to someone sitting in an office chair slowly revolving and doing nothing useful. Which is precisely what I meant and Red Hat knows that full well. Being deliberately and gratuitously facetious to inflame a dispute rather than addressing the arguments is also incivil and there is no excuse for that, nor is there any excuse for being patronising to get a rise. So sorry but I see Red Hat's conduct as quite typical of baiting an editor to get a rise then running to an admin. Always I notice just after I may be away for a few days and not be around to defend myself. And always he gets some information in that can be seen in more than one light but you can be sure its always in the worst possible light he can get away with. He nearly succeeded in getting User:Gibnews banned by repeating sockpuppet accusations he knew to be false. Am I the only editor who can see a group of civil POV pushers gaming the system? Justin talk 09:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of you, Justin, I'm retiring from the Gibraltar space. I've had enough of your poisonous attitude there towards everyone and anyone who disagrees wih you. You long ceased to be a constructive editor and are now engaging only in talk page wars. Bye. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, not because I called you out on your baiting of several editors? Don't blame others for a poisonous attitude when you've done as much as anyone to create it. Good day. Justin talk 11:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Atama, I'd like to get some advice on a Gibraltar-related issue. I've been a father for second time and I'm not very active. As my participation in Gibraltar-related articles was not much pleasant, I focused on articles far from being controversial (you can see, for instance Our Lady of Europe, Tommy Finlayson or Giovanni Battista Calvi) and I must say that I'm quite happy with them, since I've fruitfully co-operated with Gibmetal77 with great results.

<redacted> Any advice? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope Atama doesn't mind me interjecting here, but the advice is don't. See here for why. EyeSerene^talk 17:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Never mind, the speculation has been going on elsewhere too. Ecemaml blocked for a week. EyeSerene^talk 17:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Paradoxical situation

Hello Atama, as you know I added a notability tag to PHP Fat-Free Framework and Bcosca opened a paradoxical WP:COI/N against me (it is paradoxical because he is the developer of that product, the creator and the only contributor of that article). I tried to re-add the notability tag to that page but he continues to undo my edits saying there's an open WP:COI on me (opened by him) so I can't edit the page (still he can't add reliable sources). I also added a level-3 warning to his talk page but he ignored it. What could I do to safeguard myself and my contributions without breaking Wikipedia rules? Thank you. Ekerazha (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about warnings and all that. The COI complaint against you is fairly ludicrous, if there was still a Yii article then maybe Bcosca might have a sliver of justification in his complaints but with the article gone it's all moot. His own COI is the big problem right now. -- Atama頭 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin

Atama, as you know Justin has not taken a "long (maybe indefinite) Wikibreak" and he is back to the same behaviour (not yet starting to openly call me a "fascist fuckwit" advancing a "fascist racist agenda" again, but about 90% of mentions of bad faith in the Gib talk page are already coming from his posts and he keeps repeating the term "agenda" -though it's not a fascist one yet or so it seems so far- (also the "swivel" thing, and other issues that I don't feel like diff-ing here...)

As you know, I was not too eager to have him blocked in spite of his insults the last time, as I hoped he would change the attitude. But, unfortunately, that has not happened. I don't know what to do, the discussion in the Gibraltar page is starting to get surreal.

I'm starting to get really tired of discussing: I have done so for 7 months just to change THREE sentences in the article (I know that it looks like that I don't have any interest in anything else, but it is not true: I would love to edit the article about Popper, some about the Fall of Rome, some articles related to Spanish issues, one about Douglas Hofstadter... Really: I never was very much interested in Gibraltar until I got caught in the discussion; but one thing is really clear -according to my principles- I really don't want to let the usual editors in that page drive yet another editor away with bad manners -me, admittedly much less worthy than other "exiled" editors like Red Hat or Ecemaml but humbly trying hard for the article to keep a balanced POV).

What should I do? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a pretty active discussion here about Gibraltar in general. It might not be a bad place to air your concerns. That discussion includes possibly getting ArbCom involved, and some discretionary sanctions that will lead to quick blocks for anyone who gets out of hand whether it involves edit-warring, incivility, or anything else of that kind. I strongly suggest that you at least look at what people are discussing, even if you don't participate in that discussion yourself. -- Atama頭 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your a nasty piece of work Atama

Have the guts to comment in the Canwest article. You have no right to protect the canwest article at its most important time. Note, you knew it was the most important time for the article, if not why did you not know this, you're a fool! Requesting that a Canadian only be allowed to block this article. --199.60.104.147 (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read some of the other lovely commentary our friend here has made about you at Talk:Canwest. Nefariousski (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for not being Canadian. I ate an Oh Henry! bar today, does that help? (I honestly did, it was a King Size.) -- Atama頭 00:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Atama please post in the canwest discussion why you're right. --199.60.104.147 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I just did. Essentially, you're no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia, doing so is considered block evasion. Any edit you make is going against the rules. I need say no more. -- Atama頭 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No you did not, you need to comment on marterial you are restricting. Nasty piece of work. --199.60.104.147 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, I like you Atama and extend a virtual hug. You certainly don't deserve abuse like this as one of the most genuine, level headed and mature admins I've known. To the IP thats a genuine opinion, I don't do arse kissing. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• 'Like dealing with a cockroach', I said. Happy now? HalfShadow 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Justin. I appreciate your kind words. These attacks honestly don't bother me at all, it's almost a badge of honor for a sockpuppet to go out of his way to attack you personally. It comes with the territory. But thank you anyway. -- Atama頭 18:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar etc

Hi Atama. I wonder if you'd mind weighing in at ANI here if you get the chance? If not, no worries, but you're far better placed than I am to judge progress on the article with the work you've been doing there, so I think your perspective would be very valuable. Thank you :) EyeSerene^talk 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

noticeboard

Hi Atama,

I noticed you are active right now on the edit warring board and I was wondering if you will be getting to this today? [17]. I appreciate it.Malke2010 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not normally active at the EW board, though I have some experience there, but there's a huge backlog and I figured I should help. I'll look at it, but another admin might get it before I do anything (that already happened with another case I was reviewing). Thanks! -- Atama頭 21:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was asking because it's been hanging over me and I'd like to get it resolved today if possible.Malke2010 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Another question, can an editor in my situation on the noticeboard ask for a checkuser?Malke2010 22:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have sufficient evidence to show a behavioral link between two accounts, and the two accounts are being used abusively as determined by WP:SOCK, you can certainly open a report at WP:SPI. Just be sure to explain clearly why you suspect sockpuppetry and be able to provide diffs. Any report at SPI is welcome if you follow the instructions properly, even if the person you are reporting currently has a complaint about you on another noticeboard. -- Atama頭 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving the noticeboard complaint. I appreciate that. I will follow up on the WP:SPI.Malke2010 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No Violation

Thank you for your time re: the recent ruling [18]. It did not turn out the way I necessarily believed it should, but perhaps that is due to the value of an outside perspective. My concern is that it may instead be due to my newcomer status and difficulty demonstrating the concern effectively. For instance, you say there is no notification of the report, but it seems to be clear that there were a few somewhat-lighthanded reminders: Diff 111: "Please don't edit war. WP:EW " Diff 112: "Please. Also, please review how WP:BRD works. It's an attempt to avoid WP:EW and WP:3RR" [this by an editor other than myself] Diff 113: "Some of the citations were removed and/or misplaced around the time of Malke2010's repeated editing reverts to apparently soften the language regarding criticism of Fox News, which I find to be clear WP:NPOV and probably WP:EW/WP:3RR infractions." [a second editor then expressed agreement with the EW and 3RR concerns] Diff 114: "::::::At this point I'm afraid that I find you are well beyond the WP:3rr rules. I'm reporting this activity to the administrator's WP:EW noticeboard so that they can take a look and help us decide how to resolve this." [accompanied by link to the notice for his convenience]

So I don't see how anyone can say that there was no warning or at least no notice on the discussion page that this report was filed. I can see now that I should have informed him on his individual talk page instead of on the discussion page, but I had never used a talk page before today, and furthermore it does not specify that I should use a talk page in the report guidance. It just seys to tell them - and i figured telling them on the discussion forum was how to proceed. If it is not, it is due only to my inexperience as a newcomer and my report should not be tossed aside because of that fact.

You also say you don't see 4 or more reverts, but isn't reverting through blanking out other editors contributions the same thing, just accomplished surreptitiously? He should not be allowed to game the system through reversion-via-edit as opposed to direct reversion. And if reversion-via-edit counts, then he is WELL beyond that over the 24 hour period I have dilineated. I don't see how someone who created such a flurry of editing, erasing and re-erasing contributions, and even reverting our reverts when multiple editors tried to get him to slow down and discuss cannot be considered some form of 3RR/EW or disruptive editing - especially considering his past bans for disruptive editing, which should also be taken into account.

So I would appreciate either a response to these concerns, a more complete review, or to be made aware of any appeal options that might be available. If this user acknowledged their inappropriate behavior, I might not pursue it to such a degree, but now with this apparent vindiction (which he seems to try to taunt me with on my talk page here: [19]) his completely counterproductive bahavior is only encouraged by this "no violation ruling". He has been told that wikipedia offically believes his behavior is appropriate. I do thank you for your time, and am sorry to take more of it up - but just as you are trying to make wikipedia a better place, so am I. Thanks --Izauze (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using an article discussion page as a place to give notices is that the editor in question may not be aware of them. When you leave a message on an editor's talk page, they are notified (with a big yellow banner at the top of any Wikipedia page).

Another issue is that I count at least 4 reverts by you on that day as well.[20][21][22][23] If I were to block Malke, I would have to do the same to you. I'd rather not block either of you.

Finally, this is a stale issue. People are blocked during edit wars to stop the back-and-forth reverts. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not punish people for disruption that has already happened. By the time I reviewed the report, the edit war was 2 days old and the matter was being discussed on the talk page as it should have been.

I have no bad feelings about your report, and I think any mistakes you may have made were due to the fact that you are new to the site. We were all new once, no harm done. In fact, in my first notice I made to the edit war noticeboard, not only did I not see action taken against the person I thought was at fault, but the person I was trying to help out was blocked instead (oops). But there's no action needed for this particular issue. That doesn't mean that everything at the article is okay, or that nobody is guilty of any misbehavior, but the specific criteria for the edit war noticeboard requiring intervention are not met at this time. I hope that this explanation was helpful to you, thank you. -- Atama頭 00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was helpful, thank you. I certainly hope that everyone there can now focus on moving in a productive direction. --Izauze (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, is there any way, so no one else's notices are negatively impacted by the same thing, that we could change the text in the instruction from "When reporting a user here, inform them of this, possibly in conjunction with the uw-3RR warning template." to "When reporting a user here, inform them of this on their talk page, possibly in conjunction with the uw-3RR warning template."? --Izauze (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as an update, apparently things have not gotten much better with this user: I really think letting her off the hook made things worse because she now feels like she was "vindicated" and that her actions are either acceptable or at least beyond the reach of sanction. She continually games the system to enact her agenda despite her history of disruptive editing bans. At this point I wish I would have taken the co-ban even though all I did was try to preserve the material that was under consensus review. In related news, I have abandoned the article as it is obvious I can't stop her from acting in such a counterproductive way and am uninterested in continuing to bang my head into a wall for the benefit of wikipedia without support from wikipedia. --Izauze (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur

Oh, I agree about deletion. I searched too; its address is on a lot of crappy clone directories, but I can't find any source I'd remotely consider reliable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No objections whatsoever. Woogee (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Apparently I'm a former student who hates the school.  :) Woogee (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the "former student" referred to is User:Raviahuja4u, who created the article itself and provided the bulk of the information in the article. It's a plausible accusation, though not backed up by any actual evidence that I see. I don't see where the school hatred is supposed to be shown, the article as written has a positive POV, not a negative one. But this is all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned if the article gets deleted. -- Atama頭 16:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhh. Well, never mind then.  :) Woogee (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar arbitration request

This is just a courtesy note to let you know I decided to file for arbitration (request here). I've tried to explain my reasoning in the ANI thread here. I hope you don't feel that I've gone behind your back in doing so - nothing could have been further from my thoughts. I didn't add you as an involved party, but I think you can add yourself if you wish. I don't believe it's necessary to add yourself to give evidence though (assuming the case is accepted); to be honest, I'm not really sure as it's the first time I've been involved with arbitration. Anyway, all the best, and please accept my deepest respect for all you've achieved in managing that dispute for so long. EyeSerene^talk 14:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, no worries. I appreciate the notice and your concern but I myself have tossed around the idea of arbitration more than once. I suppose that it was inevitable, and as I'd said at ANI, I do have faith in our arbitrators. And you're not going behind my back at all here, I don't have an extremely active role with the Gibraltar articles. I originally got involved to help mediate a specific dispute with the Gibraltar article, and then I dropped out of the discussions more-or-less after that. I've only remained involved because people keep asking me for advice (which I don't mind at all, of course). I don't even have those articles on my watchlist anymore. So I appreciate you taking a more active role in trying to make the environment at those articles become a more peaceful one. -- Atama頭 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding :) EyeSerene^talk 21:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Aromachrology

Hi, thanks for your diligent patrolling :-) - I'm doubtful that the field of aromachrology is WP:N but I shall not revert your change. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pico edit warring

Could you please help me understand what we need to do to stop Pico from edit warring on Genesis creation myth. Each night he goes through and wipes out the work of four or five other editors, and we're all getting tired of restoring the information. I saw that you declined Deadtotruth's report because of a lack of 3rr. This isn't about 3rr. It's about a long slow edit war that he does every single night. Two or three of the other editors are about ready to give up on the page.EGMichaels (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3 is about 3RR, which is the primary reason why I declined the request. I see the edit war occurring through multiple editors, not just PiCo (Deadtotruth and Tediouspedant in particular are reverting almost as much). I also see discussion ongoing at the talk page, that's where these disputes should be handled.

What I do when I reach a conflict regarding text is force it to the talk page. If you want something and another person disagrees, you have to settle it there. Let's say that I add a fact to an article and someone reverts it without an edit summary. I may attempt to reinsert it, with a question as to why it was reverted, or I may just open a topic on the talk page right then and there, depending on circumstances. If the second attempt to add info is reverted, I'd never continue to try to add it. I'd definitely attempt to open a topic on the article's discussion page, or ask the editor directly on their talk page. The efforts of "two or three other editors" shouldn't be to continually reinsert the same info. And PiCo doesn't seem to be alone in their opinions of the content, perusing the talk page I see at least one other editor agreeing, so this isn't even the case of one holdout trying to defy consensus. I suggest dispute resolution to straighten this out. -- Atama頭 21:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Atama -- I appreciate your feedback. It's a little more complicated than that. Pico keeps reverting even material he agrees with, and this has been pointed out to him several times. There are a number of editors (including myself) actively trying to give him something logical along the lines of what he claims to want, but the constant massive deletions are leaving so many holes that none of us have time to actually get to a proper organization of the article. We just need the fellow to slow down a bit so we can give him what he wants. But every night, without fail, he makes massive deletions.EGMichaels (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave him a personal message. I agree that it's not good practice, and creates a headache for everyone else. I think that labeling it as an edit war and seeking resolution for that isn't going to be the solution, because it's not so simple (as you have pointed out yourself). It's more of a disruptive edit pattern that dominates the article, and as you said PiCo just needs to take it easy a bit. -- Atama頭 22:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-). Hopefully we can work out something that's in everyone's interest.EGMichaels (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolution to TM Sock Puppet case

After a long investigation, all parties involved in this case, including myself, have been found by ArbCom to be innocent. Thank you for patiently supporting the investigation process and assuming good faith and a neutral point of view. [24] "After extensive review of checkuser data, contribution histories, editing patterns and (in some cases) the actual edits of certain users, we have found no evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of any of the parties involved in this case. With this in mind, I do not foresee any arbitrator proposals relating to sockpuppetry, restrictions of ISPs or IPs, or anything similar."-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

iPhone

Hello, Atama. In your opinion, do you there is anything else that the article iPhone needs before it can become a GA? I would like to nominate it for GA, but I wanted to check with you to make sure it's completely ready. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I would appreciate a response to this. This would be big both for you and the iPhone OS Wikiproject. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm looking it over while doing other things. I think the article is mostly ready, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, from the previous declined GA nominations would still apply. (I also think that the previous GA decline drew a few incorrect conclusions, though that's a tangential subject.) -- Atama頭 20:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the article has been nominated more than once, but I can't find any other nominations. The last nomination, seen here, wasn't very helpful. Problems listed were:

• "Sections are often messed up" in the article, without any specifics. Nothing to go on here, best ignored.
• "Not enough info about 3G or 3GS". I don't know what "enough" info would be, you can glean the differences between models by reading the article, so I think that's okay now.
• "Would have liked a Reception section", clearly the evaluator isn't aware of WP:STRUCTURE, which I questioned them about later with no reply.
• "Not stable". The article has a history of going crazy each time Apple pushes out a new model or a major update, with new editors trying to change everything in the article. There have been no updates for awhile so I think it's as stable as it has ever been.

My personal suggestions are to try to resolve the WildBot notices at the very talk of the talk page, in reference to broken links. And I really think we need to address the opening image. I believe that not using a free image might kill any GA nomination. -- Atama頭 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am a bit worried about the infobox image, since it's a non-free image. It has been stated that there are free image alternatives, but photos with the screen on are unacceptable deriative works. Using the home screen to identify the device is unfortunately not covered by de minimis because the image would not be the same with the home screen masked out. Maybe we should discuss this further on the article's talk page. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

MedCom mediators

We need them. We've been following you at MedCab. Interested? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to help, and I'm honored to be asked. What do you need me to do? -- Atama頭 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I just need to write a nom. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You edit warring notice

I don't think the 3RR rule applies when reverting vandalism. Please examine closely the version of Swiftboating I have been reverting. Snowded screwed up some formatting bad, and just can't be convinced to proof it. Whoops, I've just checked it, you've reverted to the vandalized version. Don't you check and read comments before jumping in?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the broken ref tag which seemed to be causing this problem. In the future, fix edits if they have broken syntax, don't completely remove them. --Taelus (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's more Wikilawyering from this person. I wish I hadn't gotten involved with the article content so I could feel free to place sanctions against this IP. -- Atama頭 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, relevant pages are on my watchlist now so I can take a look every now and then. I informed the user on their talk page that such reverting isn't helpful, and that there is no excuse for edit warring. --Taelus (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate it Taelus (and so do a number of other editors working on the swiftboating article, I'm sure). -- Atama頭 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. I voluntarily adhere to 1RR. I have one edit and two reverts of snowded's damaged text. Now can you correct your comment on the notice board and go to swiftboading and restore my version, which Snowded was reverting without discussing in good faith. Taelus has fixed Snowdeds screwed up text which he and you kept reverting to.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And you didn't remove a source in the process? You're clearly working with bad intentions here. -- Atama頭 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Manjoo source for the "fact free" which is no longer relevant. I wasn't the one who removed the "fact free" language. Xeno... found better language and better sources, which I am satisfied with as long as we point out that the unsubstantiated was with respect to his activities in vietnam, Since you usually seem reasonable, I believe if you read the sources you will find that qualification to be in accordance with them. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ps, I have no problem with the Manjoo source being restored despite its irrlevancy and controverial quality.. But I wish you would give my text a fair hearing.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like having my actions mischaracterized, so allow me to reiterate a few points: 1) I didn't "find better language and better sources"; I merely reverted to the "unsubstantiated charges" verbiage that was in use back when the IP editor began edit-warring. The "fact-free" wording was introduced only because the IP wanted exact wording from sources, and he couldn't find the exact "not substantiated" words in the sources. (See the IP's edit summary here.) The IP got what he asked for, but liked it even less, so now the language is back to the way it was. Ironic? 2) The Manjoo source has pages of content discussing the unsubstantiated charges, so the Manjoo source is extremely relevant. I added an additional, but redundant source that specifically uses the "unsubstantiated" wording only to head off recurrence of the previous silliness. 3) The unsubstantiated charges were not just about his activities in Vietnam, but also his post-service activities. Manjoo describes the charges before noting they were unsubstantiated (page 13), "...charging Kerry not only with betraying the troops after Vietnam, but also lying about his behavior during the war." The Navy Inspector General addressed not only Kerry's service record, but also his anti-war activities here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and I do find it ironic that all this bickering was just to put things back to the way they were before the fuss started (at least more ironic than this). -- Atama頭 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like having my actions mischaracterized. This isn't about putting things back to the way they were before the fuss started. It is still about whether "not substantiated" or "unsubstantiated" is qualified or not. And Xeno... has supplied new sources which are actually NEWS sources that did investigate and analyze, which Manjoo did not. Manjoo just assumed and characterized because his book was opinion about how all this worked in the new media environment. I don't think his reference adds anything, but since the other two references are more substantial, it would be nice if they were referenced first. Perhaps Manjoo should be moved down to a "see also" or "external references" section since it is about how swiftboating worked. However, it is not a good reference on whether the attacks on Kerry were substantiated or not. It just expresses his opinion while discussing selected anecdotes.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth

Thanks for the note on my page about this. I also don't like the edit warring, but what's to be done? An editor has reported me for mass reversion of their material, but I might equally have reported them for the same thing. That's the nature of edit warring. So how do we get out of this impasse? (For now I'm simply withdrawing from the page, but forcing alternative views into silence not what Wiki is supposed to be about).PiCo (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What's to be done is discussion. Consensus is the fuel that runs Wikipedia, it is the ultimate authority. Even the Arbitration Committee, the editors who arguably have the most authority in the project (outside of Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation) will not go against consensus (which is why they routinely decline requests to decide what content belongs in an article). You just have to convince the other editors through discussion that the changes you want to make are necessary. If you can't do that, move on. I've had to do that myself on a number of occasions. -- Atama頭 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me butting in here but given a brief history of the article in question contains damn near a meg of discussion on the inclusion / use of one term (namely creation myth), 1 RFC on the use of the term, 2 ANIs (one on tendentious editing, one on POV pushing), and 2 RMs and pretty much all of them have gone the same way (siding with the inclusion and proper use of the term) I'd say Consensus has been established. The problem at hand is that there are a fistful of editors who refuse to accept this and keep the fire roaring over at the article. While I wouldn't go so far as to say PiCo is justified in what he did I'd also like to point out his accusers and opponents' hands are just as dirty if not in the case of quite a few individuals moreso. Blatant disregard of BRD is taking place at the article (mainly in regards to the "D" section) which essentially turns the edits to the article into a sad parody of the old "Rabbit season, duck season, rabbit season, duck season SHOOT!" scene. Far be it from me to try and persuade you one way or the other regarding a requested sanction on a user (I've dealt with you enough to know you'll do a good job sorting it all out on your own) but I just felt it may be helpful to give you a bit more history on the issue to help put things in better context. Nefariousski (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not heavily involved with the article but I know its reputation. Troubles at the article were brought to light to a number of people at Kingoomieiii's recent RfA where his involvement at the article was a reason for a number of people to oppose adminship. I attempted mediation on a similar article, where some were calling the word "myth" a pejorative, while others were stating that it is the scholarly term used (which I assume is the same dispute here) but in that case one side had quit Wikipedia before anything was resolved. So I think I have an idea of what a quagmire that article is. My advice for PiCo is the same advice I'd give to anyone who finds themselves stuck in a situation where their attempted edits are being reverted by others. -- Atama頭 22:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that some people are trying to be presumptive in their editorial approach rather than

1. openly showing all notable POVs,
2. reffing them,
3. letting the reliable sources disagree, and
4. leaving ourselves out of it.

I have no interest in leaving out any notable view. Myth/not myth -- ex nihilo/not ex nihilo. I really, really don't care. We shouldn't care. We should ref, leave our egos out of it, and then move on to something else.EGMichaels (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that. -- Atama頭 04:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case has opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this? [25], how am I supposed to defend myself when I'm at the hospital every night and have to look after my mother? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

With all of those family obligations, perhaps you should request that someone ban you from editing wikipedia for a few months so you can focus on what's important. Hipocrite (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite's reply here is the tiniest bit insensitive, but has a lot of truth to it. Justin, it sucks to have your edits, even your presence on Wikipedia being questioned and scrutinized. And it really sucks to not be able to devote enough time to defend yourself, and risk being "convicted" in absentia. But if your mom is sick, screw Wikipedia. This is your mother we're talking about. I won't promise to be an advocate for you or anything, but I'll try to keep an eye on the whole process and if things seem to be getting out of hand I'll speak up. I can't even promise that if you take a break for a month or two and come back that you won't be blocked in the meantime. But does that really matter, compared to family stuff? If you ever feel like participating in Wikipedia is causing you even the slightest inconvenience in real life then you really should reconsider your participation. As I've said before, I'd hate to see you quit, but your life and your family is so much more important than anything here. At the very least there will be one person looking over the case that isn't against you, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one. In the worst case scenario, if you're blocked and/or topic banned, you can later appeal and I can help you with that. But again, take care of your mom above anything here. -- Atama頭 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Personal Attacks against me on Fereydun Farokhzad article

Thank you for your attention to the matter. The editors in question, Alefbe, CordeliaNaismith and others are deliberately posting false information into articles related to Iran as part of an anti-Iranian political campaign on Wikipedia which they are promoting on their discussion pages. If you read the discussion page for the Fereydun Farkhzad article, the personal attacks are from Alefbe and CordeliNaismith not me. Also CordeliNaismith's claim that "Alefbe" started the discussion on this topic is a lie as much as the false content this editor is deliberately posting on Wikipedia in Iran-related articles. I was the one that started the discussion (titled "Please help clean up Fabricated Content..."): In fact Alefbe IGNORED this discussion and encouraged CordeliNaismith to also ignore the discussion, specifically saying things like "Cordelia, you are too patient with Mehrshad123. Enough is already said. Don't reward him with a lengthy discussion.". If anyone is starting a Personal Attack it is Alefbe, and I am the victim, not the perpatrator. My response to the vandalism and edit war has been exteremely patient and civil. I responded to Alefbe's vandalism and edit war on his discussion page as follows: No one doubts Farokhzad's opposition to the Iranian government, however his main target was Islam as a religion, more than the government - The sources provided in the article suggest that he may have been murdered by an arab hit squad operating in Europe. This "editor" ignored my comments and contributions as usual and reposted the same lies in the article by simply doing a full revision. I strongly suggest this group of editors be (at the very least) warned about the consequences of their exteremly rude and inapropriate behavior!-- Mehrshad123 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Atama, just in case you're interested, Mehrshad123 made the following comment on my talk page this afternoon. I don't know how relevent it is to this issue but figured that since you seemed to have been pulled into this issue I'd bring it to your attention. Nefariousski (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I'd warned Mehrshad123 about WP:OWN once before. At least you're not being linked to a terrorist organization, so maybe that's progress? But I appreciate the notice. -- Atama頭 00:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Atama, this is a very serious accusation. Could you please show me where I referred to someone as a terrorist? I think you've made a mistake here. The MKO is an anti-Iranian political organization with thousands of members, many of whom are now active on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of planting propaganda especially after the June elections. It has been classified by the U.S. as well as the Iranian government as a "terrorist organization", however it has offices in Europe which operate as a political wing, and even if I did accuse someone of being "MKO", that does not imply that they are a terrorist.--Mehrshad123 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking someone to a terrorist organization is a serious accusation. You may not have said that they have committed acts of terror, but that's certainly enough. Again, as I said, you have to stop. I'm trying to figure out what to do with you, because clearly I'm not reaching you. I don't know that there's anything I can do, you seem to see things through a prism of political fanaticism, where people of differing opinion must be "the enemy". I don't think that's compatible with Wikipedia at all. I've outlined my concerns at the noticeboard. Also, your demands of people to not edit specific articles are completely unacceptable, and you did it again after I told you not to on your talk page. I appreciate the civil manner in which you've been communicating with me, and have mentioned such at the noticeboard, but that does not outweigh your behavior elsewhere on the site. -- Atama頭 01:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Atama, could you take a look at Mehrshad's most recent activity? He seems to be going through Iran-related articles that I've previously worked on and making edits that look to me to be unhelpful. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a sample diff--he's added this unsourced paragraph to about 9 articles by now, and seems to be continuing... CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That was unwise. Editing privileges indefinitely revoked. Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention. -- Atama頭 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What? no more WP:PLAXICO??

I just came across the MFD today and was shocked, SHOCKED I tell you that they killed it off. I guess none of them have ever heard of the Streisand effect (which by their logic should also be an article up for deletion). Nefariousski (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Streisand effect actually came up in the MfD and was dismissed because it was an article, not an essay. It was suggested that if someone were to create a Plaxico effect article, and was able to source everything properly, that there would be no BLP issues. The way I read the MfD outcome is that it was less a criticism of the essay as it was a criticism of the meme, or at the very least the way people were using the meme on Wikipedia. (I may be biased in that opinion, as I wrote the essay.) The essay is actually not deleted, it still exists, but it's at WP:SHOT and has no mention of Plaxico in it. I think that the MfD has killed the meme, as I've seen usage of "Plaxico" get redacted on ANI and people are actually linking to the new essay (see here). I was never a huge fan of the meme myself, and I had created the essay initially to get rid of all the WP:PLAXICO redlinks you would see. So I'm satisfied with the way things worked out. I'm probably lucky that I wasn't lynched, actually, some people have been pretty aggressive lately about quashing BLP violations, or even hints of BLP violations (for better or worse), and I only had a couple of people call me a terrible person for writing the essay (one of which was an IP whose attacks were oversighted). -- Atama頭 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bravo for writing the essay. I've used "plaxico'd" and referenced the essay quite a few times in debate or discussion over the past few months here (after being turned onto the essay and usage by another user I talkpage stalk. I was one of the BLP RFC contributors and have a fairly hardline stance on BLP violations but hardly think an essay about a meme falls under that umbrella. Nefariousski (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed prod from Tim Buckley (artist)

I've removed the proposed deletion tag from this article because PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. Not only has the article already been through one deletion discussion (see here), which would automatically make it ineligible, but based on this discussion people are still currently objecting to its deletion. If you still believe the article should be deleted, please bring it to AfD, thank you. -- Atama頭 04:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Feel free to sort the problem out. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Buckley (artist) says (February 2007) redirect and merge to the webcomic Ctrl+Alt+Del. But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del says (March 2010) get rid of this article, Redirect to the keyboard combination Control-Alt-Delete. It would clearly be insane to redirect Tim Buckley (artist) to the keyboard combination, and the consensus seems to be that he is not notable beyond the webcomic, and that the webcomic is not notable, but nobody has agreed to delete Tim Buckley (artist). My prod was designed to complete that step, but no doubt you can find a better way.--Rumping (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Taken to AfD, since the information was previously merged to another location, which was then deleted. Please feel free to comment there, thanks. --Taelus (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

MedCom

Alright, the nom is being drafted. If you could just fill out this? About 4 people (PhilKnight, Wordsmith, Ryanposs, someone I've forgotten) have been bugging me to get this going :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File:HottrixLogo.jpg

Hello, Atama. I was looking at File:HottrixLogo.jpg, which is currently being used as fair-use. I think it could qualify a {{PD-textlogo}} license. What do you think?
Also in case you haven't figured it out, 98.230.214.136, the person who requested the creation of Hottrix, was me. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no I never would have guessed that was you. :) I'm glad you had asked, Hottrix was the first article I ever created from scratch and it was all your inspiration. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're right about the PD logo mark, see Microsoft and Target, which are more complex than the Hottrix logo and still fall under that rationale. I'll change the templates in the file. -- Atama頭 22:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the image with {{movetocommons}} and {{shouldbesvg}}. I hope you don't mind. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 23:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, and I'm actually working on a conversion to SVG right this moment. -- Atama頭 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your svg appears to be corrupt. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 00:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Fixing it, hopefully. -- Atama頭 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Still corrupt. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 00:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that once it gets uploaded to Wikimedia, it gets hosed. The file is fine on my PC. Now I remember why I never bothered converting it to SVG when I first created the file. Oh well. -- Atama頭 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a question that may help: Is the file a plan SVG or an Inkscape SVG? Only plain SVGs work on Wikipedia. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 01:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:INK#Rendering files shows how to fix it. But it still doesn't work. I decided to split the difference and replace the JPG with a PNG, since WP:PIFU implies that PNGs are better for everything but photographs. -- Atama頭 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

At least it isn't a JPEG anymore. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Many thanks for your posting, Dad is out of hospital but both mum and dad will need a lot of looking after. My sister is helping out for a few days so I have a breathing space.

I appreciate your kind words and as always your capacity for being fair and even handed. Regards, Justin the Evil Scotman talk 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

SerdechnyG

Hey, I saw your recent post at ANI regarding SerdechnyG. I've been mentoring him, and I think I've made some progress with him. As I see it, the main issue is that he, being unfamiliar with the particulars of en.wikipedia policies, conducted himself according to ru.wikipedia policies, and ran into problems when he encountered differences between the two. I've found that he's very receptive to my explanations of policy matters, and is very polite when patience is shown to him. I thought that your remarks on ANI were a bit bitey, as I think he is perfectly competent, and will get it with enough coaching. I would greatly appreciate it if you could show him some patience. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 02:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. I apologize if it seemed a bit bitey, but I was seeing a great deal of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and he seemed willfully belligerent in his responses to people. If he's being more receptive to you than he was to others in the ANI post, then that's very good. I had no intention and still have no intention of offering sanctions or anything along those lines, my only intention was a reminder that WP:AGF and patience aren't infinite. -- Atama頭 16:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of web application frameworks cleaning

I've seen you have dewikified Atomik Framework, but Comparison of web application frameworks is a list/comparison of notable web application frameworks, so if an article has been deleted as-per WP:GNG (non-notable), I don't see why the product should be mentioned there. I think every external-linked entry (without a wiki article), every entry linked to a non-existent article, every entry linked to a deleted article and every dewikified entry, should be removed. What do you think about this? Ekerazha (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I noticed the non-article entries as well which is why I didn't remove the entry completely, but I think your reasoning is sound. If you want to make that change you can do so with my support. -- Atama頭 18:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please monitor that article as I fear an edit war by the "owners" of the removed entries. Also, I think many of the listed articles could be cleaned as non-notable, it will be a huge prod/afd feat. Moreover, I think the "list" and the "comparison" sections should be merged (this was already proposed on the article's discussion page), maybe this could be done when most entries will be cleaned. Ekerazha (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. -- Atama頭 21:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, keep an eye on Front Controller pattern too, as User:Dmforcier keeps undo/restoring content related to non-notable, deleted articles, please join this discussion too: User_talk:Ekerazha#Front_Controller_pattern.3F. Ekerazha (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice requested.

I really don't know how to take this comment [26]. What would you advise? It seems such a bizarre demand and given previous comments from Cremallara about ethnic profiling deeply upsetting. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 18:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Cremarella. For the most part, we who edit Wikipedia are anonymous. We don't often see each other in-person, we don't usually get to know one another that well, and so we have to judge people on their actions and comments. When a person makes a particular claim, such as having experience in an industry, or having won an award, or holding a degree, we have to take such claims with a grain of salt. If you aren't familiar with the Essjay controversy read up on it. We do have a guideline that suggests that we assume good faith, of course, and take people at their word until they can be proved otherwise. If someone tells me that they live in France, or have Russian grandparents, I'll believe them. I believe that you're half-Spanish. But when a person's real life identity or credentials are repeatedly invoked in discussions as a justification for an action or a defense it wears thin after awhile. Only in rare cases, such as people who prove their identity through OTRS, do we know for certain if a person's telling the truth about themselves. I have certifications in A+ and Network+ and more than 10 years as a computer professional, but if I was involved in IT-related discussions and brought that up repeatedly to prove that I was correct then I wouldn't be surprised if someone asked me to ease off on throwing it around.

The other issue is that one of the reasons why we have such a problem with the Gibraltar-related articles it that there is too much of an emphasis on editors' real-life identities, affiliations, and nationalities. We do have a conflict of interest guideline, and in some circumstances knowing where a person is coming from does matter. But it has gotten out of hand at the Gibraltar articles, as it often does at articles where people have disputes along nationalist lines. Invoking your ethnicity as a defense isn't helping. It's absolutely reasonable for you to argue that you're not a racist, because it's rare for a person to be biased against their own race. If your mother or father is Spanish, how can you hate Spanish people if you love your parents? But in the charged atmosphere that surrounds the Gibraltar articles, statements like that just inflame the nationalist conflicts. Also, I'm sure it's not your intent, but invoking your ethnicity also implicitly casts suspicions on those who don't share your ethnicity. By saying that you aren't biased because you're Spanish, you're implying that those who aren't Spanish may be biased. Again, I know you're not trying to do that, but that's the kind of impression it might make on people. That's why it's best to just not bring this stuff up.

I hope that I haven't rambled too much in my explanation here, and I hope you aren't offended. I just want to help you understand where these complaints may be coming from. My suggestion to you would be to agree that a person's race or nationality shouldn't be a concern in these discussions, and that is why you shouldn't be considered a racist. Based on what you've said in the past, I'd expect you to agree with that suggestion. -- Atama頭 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No not offended in the least I appreciate the perspective that is why I asked you rather than uploading a copy of my Birth Certificate. I really didn't know how to respond. Allegations of being "anti-Spanish" are usually a label to present editors as unreasonable and thats what I responded to in each case. A person's race or nationality shouldn't be a concern, too often its been raised and usually for the negative or an excuse to justify ignoring a reasoned argument. I will think and comment sometime later. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pooja Ghai

Hi, I see you redirected Pooja Ghai to the character she portrayed in EastEnders, stating it was her only claim to notability. It was a minor role, and she's also been in Casualty, The Bill, Doctors, Holby City and something called Grease Monkeys. In fact, looking at what links there, she's also been in Mehndi Tere Naam Ki and is appearing in I Hate Luv Storys. That's why I think the page should have been deleted instead of redirected. anemoneprojectors talk 23:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll just delete the whole thing then. -- Atama頭 00:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Koavf

Please take note of this discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see here (permalink) I believe that Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hounding me and has involved your talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lotte Hotel Moscow

I have removed the prod from Lotte Hotel Moscow since it appears to be a luxury five-star hotel which has coverage from reliable sources. Luxury hotels often generate media coverage because they do certain things very well and have distinctive architecture and facilities. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lotte Hotels & Resorts

I don't know how good or bad the Lotte Hotels & Resorts article was before it was deleted, but this search and this one show some articles from reliable sources that might establish notability. A company that owns a few high-profile hotels and attracts publicity for deals it is involved in is probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want it restored just say the word. PRODs can be undeleted on anyone's request. -- Atama頭 07:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, please restore it. I will add the references I mentioned. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's done! -- Atama頭 20:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your quick response to my request. I appreciate it. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, just remember next time that you're above their kind of talk, as I'm sure you are. -- Atama頭 21:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Turbocat404 vs. User:Chewwy225

Hello there, Atama. I just found your name in WP:ANI, and I need some help. I was going through recent changes, and I saw Chewwy225 undoing Turbocat404's undos of Chewwy225's on Turbocat404's userpage. Apparently, There was some edit war going on Imageboard, and on their user talk and user pages. I posted a notice that I wanted to mediate a resolution for both of them. Am I doing the right thing, and is this what I should be doing? Thanks, --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Chewwy225's edit to Turbocat404's userpage and asked Kintetsubuffalo why he left the tag in the first place. From our definition of sockpuppet, calling someone a sockpuppet of an IP makes little sense. I'm keeping an eye on the user page until I figure out what's going on. In the mean time, if you have questions about conflicts of interest from your conversation with these two editors on your talk page feel free to ask me, I am a regular helper at the noticeboard and can offer advice. Thanks! -- Atama頭 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kintestusbuffalo, could you explain what was behind this edit? I'm confused as to how an account can be a sockpuppet of an IP address. If there's some kind of sockpuppetry going on and you have evidence, I'd appreciate it, and might be able to take action on it. Thanks! -- Atama頭 17:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've answered this at Xtcy3's talkpage. I always label both linked accounts, as with sockpuppets it is difficult to determine which is the chicken and which the egg. If I label both, users and admins who later have trouble with the sock at least can see the circular connection. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock of User:Sorrywrongnumber

This new editor seems to be an obvious sock of Sorrywrongnumber. They're editing the same articles, and attempting to add unreferenced information concerning the subjects' personal lives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the new article they created Jeremy Cox (actor) is the name that Sorrywrongnumber claimed was his on his User page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to me wrapped up now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad, I was tied up this weekend but it's good to see it was resolved anyway. -- Atama頭 19:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Miriam Dudley

Hi Atama! I noticed that you removed the PROD tag from Miriam Dudley stating, "Removed prod tag, you can't propose an article for deletion that has already survived an AfD." Could you please point me to the policy that states that you can't PROD an article that has already survived an AfD, since I'm having trouble finding it? Also, I'm wondering if that policy holds true if the two PRODs are done for different reasons. The first PROD was done for copyvio, and the one I placed was for lack of notability. Thanks for helping me navigate this process! Clifflandis (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The policies and procedures can be confusing if you're just starting out! Clifflandis (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

They certainly can be, I'm glad to help. -- Atama頭 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Kirkuk 2010 results in Iraqi parliamentary election, 2010 article

Hi,you are an admin here right? can you please look at this user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kermanshahi this user refused to accepr the links i provided because he says that those links are in arabic and he can't understand this language. despite the fact that it is directly related to the topic. he thinks that the election results are not final and i dont know where he got this information from. its everywhere on the news. just to clarfy things, the kurdish list has won 6 seats out of the 12 seats in the disputed city of kirkuk and the remaining seats were given to the aliraqiya list i.e 6 seats. so in fact according to his logic no one has won the majority of seats in kirkuk (eventhough he put on his map that the kurdish list has won the majority in the article which is misleading)and if you look at the links i provided and even the links to 95% of the results it clearly shows that aliraqiya got higher number of votes than the kurdish alliance list. i provided numerous links and he rejected all of them:

• http://www.ihec.iq/English/press_releases.aspx?id=2378
• http://www.ihec.iq/content/file/result/names/Kirkuk.pdf
• http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/4/128842/
• http://www.uruknet.info/?p=64532
• http://www.themajlis.org/projects/iraq-results

Thanks --86.146.8.131 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem has been resolved. another user who understandas arabic read my sources and changed the map. I thought i would let a third party know in case things get worse with the other user. Thanks anyway. --86.146.8.131 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Atama. Very wise words and thanks for the advice. I'll certainly bear it in mind and see how I get on. The latest RichardDaft account has gone to the SSP but no doubt another will be along shortly. When it does, I'll just do what is necessary to protect the articles and talk pages. Thanks again and all the best. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)