Archives

Year 2007 Year 2008 Jan-Sep 2009 Oct-Dec 2009 Jan-Mar 2010 Apr-Dec 2010 Jan-Jul 2011 Aug-Dec 2011 Year 2012 Year 2013 Jan-Mar 2014

Hi Atama: You might recall that you told Mrm7171 the following.

"But I'll give you a chance, probably one more chance than you merit at this point, but I'll offer it anyway. Would you agree to leave these editors alone? To stop undoing their edits, removing their references, bringing them up on noticeboards, challenging them on user and article talk pages? Will you do something useful for the encyclopedia? -- Atama頭 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Mrm7171 is not exactly following your advice to leave me alone. They undid a change I made on a couple of pages, e.g., the musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) page,[1] then I deleted with an explantion of why,[2] and they deleted again [3], and now I'm getting caught up in an argument about whether or not I/O psychology is relevant to MSDs.[4]. I'd be thankful for your thoughts on this. Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atama. I have edited a number of important articles today, and continued to be useful to the encyclopedia. I have stayed away from psyc12 in doing so. I have not removed their edits (and rarely do) or brought them up on noticeboards. I have also not revisited any of the occupational health psychology articles as agreed. Work psychology was added to the muscoskeletal disorder article 2 weeks ago and rightly so. Psyc12 then deleted its inclusion. Today I engaged in what can only be seen as civil discussion with psyc12. Psyc12 asked for a reliable source. I provided one. They then report me here to you? Please see Talk:Musculoskeletal disorder

I also did not revert again today, even though psyc12 again deleted my good faith edit, so not to edit war, and we could just work it out. Work and organizational psychology is a major part of psychology internationally. I am in no way, hounding psyc12 either, and resent the insinuation, but it appears psyc12 just wants readers to believe occupational health psychology is the only area of psychology to muscoskeletal disorders in the workplace? It is not. And readers deserve the best, most neutral encyclopedic articles possible. Perhaps psyc12 could instead just work with me on the odd articles where there is some overlap, in the name of civil editing? Why can't we include both work psychology and occupational health psychology?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you wrote to psyc12 regarding hypocrisy, and I think is more than relevant here. It is the only issue it seems that psyc12 is still complaining to you about, instead of just working it out, and moving on? Please see: [5] Mrm7171 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try a compromise here. I'm going to step in as a non-administrator here. As a regular reader and editor, I'm confused as to why OHP should be linked to, but not I/O. It seems to me that neither is directly related to musculoskeletal disorders, because neither field is involved in treating physical injuries. However, both fields are involved with managing occupational stress (in fact, each article has a section on it) and because occupational stress is a factor in people suffering from musculoskeletal disorders at the workplace, both articles are tangentially related.

@Psyc12: Please help me understand how OHP is more relevant and deserves inclusion while the other doesn't. @Mrm7171: While I'm not an expert in any way, I can still intervene using common sense and through an attempt to receive consensus so that there doesn't need to be the added distraction of your participation in the discussion (for now). That way you don't have to interact with Psyc12. -- Atama頭 15:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: OHP is a field concerned specifically with workplace health and safety, and so it is more relevant to topics having to do with physical health than is I/O, which is more concerned with psychological well-being. I can provide more explanation, but maybe it is best to use references. As I put on the talk page, I checked an I/O psychology handbook, and 7 textbooks and none mentioned MSDs in the index. An I/O encyclopedia did not have an entry.[6] So numerous authors/scholars in the field do not consider it important enough to mention. By contrast, the Campbell and Quick OHP Handbook has an entire chapter on MSDs, and it is mentioned in other chapters too. The OHP chapter in Coreil's Social and Behavioral Foundations of Public Health says the following "This chapter will discuss five OHP issues that affect the health, safety, and well-being of employees", Number 2 is "Musculoskeletal disorders that are caused, as least in part, by carrying out job tasks" (p. 401). Psyc12 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet industrial and organizational psychology states in the lead that it is concerned with workplace health and safety as well. It also discusses musculoskeletal disorders ("For instance, researchers at the institute of work psychology (IWP) examined the mediating role of psychological strain in relation to musculoskeletal disorders"), and references it with a link to the Journal of Applied Psychology. You might be able to argue that OHP is more relevant, but to exclude I/O you'd have to demonstrate that it isn't relevant at all (rather than less relevant). -- Atama頭 22:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acting as a mediator here Atama and providing some common sense reasoning and sound knowledge of Wikipedia policy. This kind of neutral third party involvement, in the occupational health psychology article would have helped immensely, in hindsight. As already noted, occupational stress has been shown as one cause of muscoskeletal disorders. Both areas are concerned with occupational stress. Both articles should therefore be included in the see also section, for the benefit of the reader. A side point is that many of the researchers who have identified this link between MSDs hold Doctorates in I/O psychology and/or are occupational/organizational psychologists. Much of this research has also come from the IWP, as you correctly noted Atama. The IWP is "home to one of the largest groups of occupational psychology academics in Europe" please see: https://www.postgraduatestudentships.co.uk/department/university-sheffield/institute-work-psychology. Although not even applicable in this case, psyc12's argument that OHP is more relevant than work psychology, to MSD's is simply not true.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama:. I already showed above that MSDs are not a topic within I/O at all--not one mention, and so that makes it not relevant at all. I don't understand how the existence of this article informs whether MSDs are relevant to I/O. The article doesn't say that it is an I/O article or that the study of MSDs is relevant to I/O. It is just an article about psychological factors in MSDs. The only reason it is mentioned in the I/O article is because yesterday Mrm7171 put it there. I do not think it belongs because MSDs are not even a minor topic in the field, as noted above. Psyc12 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: If you go to the website for IWO you will see their mission/purpose, and it has nothing to do with MSDs, and they don't mention physical health either. What they describe is what is described in many places as the domain of I/O.[ http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/management/research/iwp/about] Here's two quotes from their site.

"to evaluate and implement programs that aim to improve team performance, employee engagement and wellbeing, and leadership." "Illustrative issues we have addressed include creativity training, idea capture schemes, empowerment, employee engagement, organisational change, leadership, management support, team-working, bullying and violence, employee wellbeing and small business needs."

And while we are discussing this, Mrm7171 undid my edit for the third time in two days and stuck I/O back in. Psyc12 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Did not know this discussion was still continuing after your last comment Atama. I'm also not sure if I'm able to contribute here, or why it would even be necessary to further this discussion. I could easily refute psyc12's points above, but with all due respect, I think psyc12's comments are missing the point, regarding this whole discussion relating to the 'see also' section of that article.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrm7171: Yeah, your edit re-started the edit war that went dormant when discussion started, so it was definitely not a good one Mrm7171. My suggestion, as a good faith gesture, is to self-revert to show that you didn't mean to circumvent discussion that way.

So the I/O page didn't say anything about MSDs until a day ago when you changed the article to justify adding I/O it to the "see also" section of the MSD article? -- Atama頭 01:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: Sorry, should have given diffs.[7] [8] Psyc12 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: Undid inclusion as a good faith gesture. Regarding addition of reliable source, yes, the reliable source was added to article 2 days ago? Not to justify addition though. It was because psyc12 demanded a reliable source, so I gave him one and then also included it in article? There are other reliable sources too. But does it matter to this point under discussion? The reliable source added is sound, and fits in well with both occupational stress and occupational health and safety, both topics in the article. Definition in lede of article is long term. Your common sense reasoning and application of policy, already outlined above Atama, is also sound. Work and organizational psychology is relevant to MSDs, as much as occupational health psychology, if not more so! Work & organizational psychologists are increasingly concerned with the physical and mental health outcomes of occupational stress, particularly throughout Europe. A further justification for its relevance is the strong relationship between human factors and ergonomics and occupational psychology. Also, many of the researchers who identified this link between MSDs hold Doctorates in I/O psychology and/or are occupational/organizational psychologists. I fail to see why or how occupational health psychology would be included and then to restrict the inclusion of work psychology also?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I also added occupational medicine and occupational hygiene 2 weeks ago when I added organizational psychology to that article's see also section, for the benefit of the reader. They too are relevant. We need to remember it is the link between occupational stress as one cause of MSDs, that we are talking about here. Helping organizations reduce work stress in turn will reduce MSD's. That is the relevance to work psychology and occupational health psychology, for that matter!Mrm7171 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly Atama. Here is a 2013 case study titled OP (occupational psychology) in practice. It can be cited within a definitive source titled work and occupational psychology: integrating theory & practice on page 241. I thought it was an interesting example of exactly how occupational psychology is relevant to MSDs through interventions for work related stress. books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1446260704 I could provide so much more evidence supporting work psychology's relevance to MSD's, but is it really needed? I am also amazed as to the veracity of opposition to its simple inclusion in the see also section, alongside many other articles, and the insistence by psyc12 that only the OHP article be included for readers?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: I did a Web of Science Search for MSDs. Since 1968 they list 451 papers; 39 in the category of applied psychology. Of those 2 are in an I/O-related journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, that is a general applied psychology (not just I/O) journal.[9] One was the Sprigg paper Mrm referenced. The other is a paper by Gary Evans[10] who is not an I/O psychologist (environmental and developmental). This journal has published 9,191 papers in its history, 2 are on MSD, and only one of those is by people associated with the I/O field. As for the case above, from what is described, it is about stress, not MSD. By the way, I am not arguing that OHP should stay on the list. I was asked to explain why it is more relevant. Psyc12 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Psyc12: and I've been giving this a lot of thought. I've also been looking over the musculoskeletal disorder article. And something disturbing occurred to me, once I got out of the myopic focus on the propriety of various inclusions in the "see also" section.

So, a MSD is a health issue, it's where you have pain in joints, ligaments, tendons, muscles, and nerves. It's much like other injuries, like having a bone fracture or concussion or a bruise. Generally, Wikipedia articles related to health problems are meant to inform the reader about the health problem... Symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc. When I look at the MSD article, however, I see that only about 10% of the article (literally 2 sentences in the lead!) is devoted to the actual disorder itself. The rest of the article is devoted to its prevalence among workers, its impact on worker productivity and morale, and so on. All external links are to occupational health sites, and all references are related to occupational issues. While the two of you are in a prolonged conflict, you both obviously come from a background of occupational health (physical and/or mental). I looked at the original author of the article, and that person's editing history shows a similar focus.

This is a problem to me. This is not an article about musculoskeletal disorder. This is a coatrack article about occupational/industrial health. It doesn't resemble any of Wikipedia's legitimate health-related articles, either in structure or content. And I think the problem is because of who has created and expanded the article. This is like an article written about chewing gum written by people in the paper and plastics industries, who devote 90% of the article to what kind of wrapper the gum comes in, and who are fighting over whether or not waxed paper should be given undue weight over alternate wrappers (like foil). This article is inherently flawed due to the perspective of everyone who has been involved with it. It wasn't written in poor faith, it wasn't developed by people with an insidious agenda, but it has suffered because it was developed by people with a very narrow focus who lose sight of what is important in the article, and give undue weight to issues that are within their own interests and expertise but in such a way that it's a disservice to the readers.

Unfortunately, I'm at a loss as to how to repair the article. I'm a crappy content developer, I'm always open about that. It's a big flaw of mine, that I can see flaws and problems in articles easily but I don't have the kind of mindset that fixes them very well. The only thing I can think of is to reach out to some place like WikiProject Medicine so that people who actually do have such skills can give advice or intervene. But there needs to be a fresh perspective on this article, and I don't doubt that there are others in the same state. -- Atama頭 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: I think your comments are spot on. MSD's don't just occur in the workplace either, and this article is simply about MSD. I think the issue is that it is weighted too much toward occupational health and causation, rather than general health and a focus on what an MSD actually is? I think inclusion of other research would improve the article giving it some balance. We should also call a 'spade a spade,' and refer to 'stress as stress' rather than dress it up. But that's just my opinion. To resolve this issue over the 'see also' section perhaps we could include both (as they are both relevant to work stress and its effect on MSD's) or neither. But to exclude one article and not the other is not fair? I'm fine with both options, quite frankly, to resolve it and move on from what appears to me to be a very minor issue, given other problems with this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The epidemiologic literature links MSDs more closely to working conditions that involve repetitive motion, lifting heavy loads, etc. This is not to say that sometimes individuals have such experiences outside of work (there may be research on this topic). But work is source of biomechanical problems because what one does at work is not voluntary. Sanitation workers must engage in lifting. Typists much type.

I think that what the article on MSDs needs most, however, is coverage of evidence-based treatments of MSDs. I think Wikipedia users would appreciate that. Iss246 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my problem is that after reading the article I only have the vaguest idea of what an MSD is. The disorder itself isn't described in any detail outside of the lead, and even there literally 2 sentences are devoted to it. I understand devoting space to talking about the impact of the disorder on the workplace, but right now the vast majority of the article is devoted to it. That info should be in one section of the article (which could be further divided into subsections, of course) and could be mentioned in the lead but should not take up the majority or even half of the lead. That's my opinion at least. Treatment of MSDs is fine, that's the kind of info that most of these articles have and it would be an improvement. -- Atama頭 15:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama:The musculoskeletal disorder article has been restructured to put more emphasis on the disorder and less on the workplace. General content has been added, but there is more left to do on the nature of the disorder, causes, and intervention/treatment. Thanks for your input. Psyc12 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that my input was helpful. Thank you for listening to me. :) -- Atama頭 15:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama:I have left the editing mostly to psyc12. However I just tried making, what I thought was a reasonable and sensible edit. It was quickly reverted by psyc12. Rather than me interact further at this stage, and be dragged into a protracted discussion, could you have a look please Atama at my reasoning on the talk page. Talk:Musculoskeletal disorder I really don't see why we need to focus so heavily on work related psych hazards and then psyc12 insisting on breaking it down into specific work related hazards like workload etc makes no sense to me, and does no justice to this article, in my opinion?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the mess is continuing in a different arena. Just after the previous AN/I discussion was archived, Mrm7171 went to Elton Mayo where we seem to see a recreation of the problems between Mrm7171, Psych12 and Iss246 that we've seen with previous articles. I don't know who is in the right in terms of the article, but the same general issues we saw on the previous articles seem to be recreating themselves there. At this stage I don't know if we should just write this off as editors with similar interests running into each other, or if it should instead warrant additional steps, but it is at least worth a heads up. - Bilby (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We have a complicated set of problems, in which bad behaviour plays its part. I feel that the underlying problem is based on the conceptual similarity of the mental universes of all three main participants. All are setting (slightly different) hard boundaries to concepts that (in my mental universe at least) are fluid and that overlap. (And whose details aren't of major personal importance to me, nor I suspect to most readers of an encyclopedia.) Both the concepts and their boundaries then become the subject of intractable wrangles. Thus we have had the issue of whether OHP is "really" a full sub-discipline of psychology, of whether OHP existed before the term was published, and endless issues about claiming various domains for various psychological "sub-disciplines". We also have poor use of writing skills. The results at best are coatrack articles full of lists, without a coherent story (though still not without value). Unfortunately, sorting this multiple-article mess will take more than a single wikignome with good intentions. As things are, any such gnome would need to have access to a fairly wide variety of printed sources (which I, for example, don't) and would need to have plenty of time to rewrite articles free from wrangles (which doesn't seem to be on offer). As the three editors concerned appear to be professional psychologists, we can hope that they will find some way of breaking out of this unfortunate pattern of behaviour, helping each other to write really good encyclopedic articles without having to insert multiple claims about professional boundaries, before some admin decides that the mop is really required. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came close at one point to blocking Mrm7171 because it was demonstrated that he was following the other two editors and opposing them at various articles, and dragging them to multiple noticeboards in an attempt to get them either blocked or topic-banned (mostly due to COI reasons, glossing over his own of course). This led to a 2 week block in the midst of a discussion on ANI where a number of people were suggesting an indefinite block. He came off the block doing practically the same behavior. When I dug into the background and found this pattern, I threatened an indefinite block, at which point he seemed to back down the accusations and act a bit more cooperative. But while that seemed to cool things off a bit (enough that I had hope that they might be able to collaborate constructively) it never resolved the issue. I'm a bit worried about all of the editors. They're knowledgeable professionals, but tend to be pretty myopic (they're all SPAs to one degree or another) and just as Richard said this leads to coatrack articles. Anything they write about is either about OHP (Psyc12 and Iss246) or I/O (Mrm7171). If an article is tangentially-related to either discipline or issues covered by the discipline, it gets skewed to focus on whatever the editor's particular discipline concerns itself with. I think regardless of any interpersonal conflicts between these editors, there is a larger problem with their good faith but misguided contributions. -- Atama頭 15:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

regarding powerwave technologies

hi

I used to work for Powerwave earlier. Powerwave is now shut down. There is no company webpage. The wikipedia page was the only sensible thing (though it had flaws). I was really saddened and quite shocked to see that the article has been removed from Wikipedia. Now there is no trace of what the company was. There is no website nor any wiki article. For many former employees like me, the wikipedia article was the only sensible remaining page to the company which we had worked for. 

This especially pains me since I contributed my bit (in $$) to Wikipedia just a few months back.

I appeal to you to restore the article.

regards, Parag Dighe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragdighe (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paragdighe: I can restore the article, because it was deleted through a process that requires no controversy, and anyone expressing an objection to the article's deletion can either prevent the deletion from occurring, or have it restored after it was deleted. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial where we seek to honor individuals and organizations that have passed on. The article failed to demonstrate how the was notable enough to merit an article, and when I searched for coverage in reliable sources to show such notability I was unable to find any, which is why I deleted the article. So the article may still be deleted after I restore it, in fact it is likely that it will be, and the article would not be able to be restored after a simple request. -- Atama頭 16:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I saw this and removed the inappropriate content; but I think it is probably a copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SpongebobLawyerPants ‎sock

Jonny Rambo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
As you were the blocking admin, I'm notifying you of this new user basically carrying on the same editing pattern established by SpongebobLawyerPants (talk · contribs). Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I swear i dont even know that Spongebob guy. This is my first account. Dont mix me up. --Jonny Rambo (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI started, though it hardly seems necessary. [11] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Johnny Rambo, it's pretty blatant, but I'll see if CU is interested in looking for other accounts. -- Atama頭 20:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betterthansuchasyou again

Thoughts on these edits? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the last straw. This editor has gone over the deep end since the last time I looked at their contributions. I've blocked them indefinitely. This person is engaged in the kind of behavior that has brought a bad name to Wikipedia, in defaming article subjects. -- Atama頭 14:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured. Thanks for doing the honors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Anti-Russian partisan behaviour in Russians in Estonia

Hi, I wouldn't have been here if the issue was mere edit conflict. The issue is deeper than that as those users are teaming up to remove even tags that show the existence of a conflict dispute.[12][13] I implore you to de-archive the ANI, I would even encourage you as an uninvolved editor to take a look and assess the discussion at the talk page.--Kathovo talk 11:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathovo: I'm not going to de-archive your thread. ANI is for administrator requests; when behavioral problems require administrative intervention, or when there is some other kind of problem that requires administrator assistance. The issue you're having is a content dispute, and some issues you have might be settled better by WP:POVN (you suggest that stating that "Soviet annexation being illegal" is an NPOV violation) or perhaps WP:RSN (people dispute some of the sources you're using for your argument).

As for the tag... There's no black and white answer to that. A POV tag is supposed to indicate that there is a dispute. But that raises the question of when it's appropriate to remove the tag. I could step in as an administrator and state that if one person thinks there's a problem, against four other editors, then the tag must stay until that one person is satisfied. I don't think that I'm comfortable making that call, because in theory you could dispute it forever and it would permanently stain the article. As it is, you've had a discussion going for roughly a week now, and the consensus seems to overwhelmingly suggest that your wanted changes aren't supported by anyone.

I understand that you feel that you're being tag-teamed. Maybe there is a cabal of editors who want to maintain the status quo (functionally violating WP:OWN). But without taking sides, I can say at the very least that the objections that they've made to your suggestions haven't been empty "we don't like it" sorts of objections, there are reasonable arguments in there. I think that accusing you of soapboxing is a bit of a hyperbole, but otherwise I don't see anything that's out of line in that discussion. Your problem isn't the lack of a POV template on the article page (that doesn't seem to be a fight worth spending effort on), it's a lack of support from anyone. ANI isn't the place to find that support. An RfC should hopefully bring in others, but if it doesn't, it doesn't. Have you tried asking for fresh input from WikiProjects? A neutrally-worded request for other opinions isn't a bad idea. If you feel really stuck there is also WP:DRN (which is probably what you should have used rather than ANI). But being unable to gather support from others and losing an argument is something that happens to everyone. Even for me, I was in a recent discussion at Talk:Yelp, Inc. where I felt like the prevailing opinion (keeping things in a "controversy" section) went against our neutrality guidelines, was bad article construction, and didn't make sense in context of the article. But most people disagreed. I think that others made a mistake, but I had to move on. It happens. I'm not saying that you have to move on at this point, but there may be a point where you'll have to. It's how things are in a place like Wikipedia where everything is settled by consensus. -- Atama頭 17:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, I have seen quite a few RfCs about dedicated Controversy sections and their outcome is very predictable. It's possible the unusual outcome is merely the result of defensiveness regarding my COI, which often skews an editor's perspective. The much more paranoid explanation might be that a certain banned user that often uses IP addresses like this one, has been known to use established accounts for socking, and has been trolling me on Wikipediaocracy might be responsible. However, this is why discussions are closed based on the strength of the arguments rather than voting, so users don't have to entertain such paranoia regarding whether the discussion has been tainted. If the discussion does get a formal close, I'm not convinced consensus would be weighed in the same direction as the votes. Anyways, I'd be happy to take a look at the discussion noted above. CorporateM (Talk) 01:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, it is difficult to weigh the arguments because the discussion is all over the place. We do need neutral editors to be more persistent than POV pushers, but it is sometimes difficult to tell who is which. The extreme non-neutral wording of the RfC and other elements of the discussion give me the impression of a testosterone fueled "fight to the last stand" mentality. It bears reminding that we are all colleagues working together. I am somewhat lenient towards saying Atama's advice of leaving it be and editing somewhere else may be sound, but it is hard to say without being able to better assess which party is correct, given how fragmented the discussion is. CorporateM (Talk) 17:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh actually on a pure vote-count on the Yelp page is almost tied. Weird for some reason I thought it was strongly in favor of "as-is". CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hi ... perhaps you could take a glance at some apparent sockpuppetry? You indicated in the past that you did not think sockpuppetry was afoot, and perhaps that will be your surmise again, but similar behavior has just surfaced with a new user. This relates to Indiggo, an article you have looked at in the past. The user's edits are here, and the article is at AfD. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: I do remember that incident, and I'll definitely look into this new account. I'll compare it behaviorally against the previous accounts active at that article and see what I find. Thank you for letting me know. -- Atama頭 04:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: So I've taken the time to look over the contributions of both Dany4444 and DavidLeib. I see some striking behavioral similarities that lead me to believe that they are the same person. Their edit summary usage is similar, and if you compare the message left on your talk page with the message left on Ian's talk page they are very similar. Both editors make frequent use of exclamation points in edit summaries, both insist that Piers Morgan is a racist, both repeatedly ask people to stop reverting them and take it personally each time. It's enough for me to call this per WP:DUCK. I don't believe that they are the same person as Indiggo77 who seemed to communicate a bit more aggressively and who used edit summaries differently (when they did so, which was not often). I also don't see any other editors in the history of that article that seem to match.

I feel confident in saying that Dany4444=DavidLeib, but what does that mean? DavidLeib last edited on March 4. Dany4444 wasn't created until April 5, over a month later. There is no overlap between the two. DavidLeib, despite receiving frequent warnings for disruption (mostly for edit-warring) has a clean block log. If DavidLeib abandoned the old account and created a new one, there is no violation of anything at WP:SOCK. Not until and unless the DavidLeib account edits again could it be argued that an editor is maintaining two accounts simultaneously. The only negative consequence of two people using the two accounts is that we can treat them as one person performing all of those actions, so the warnings from DavidLeib should be considered to be in Dany4444's history. Any evaluation of Dany4444 for a pattern of disruption should take into account the actions of both accounts. That means that Dany4444 is about one more incident away from at least a short block. They seem to have taken an editing break for the last couple of days, if they come back and start disrupting again then myself or someone else should block them. If you see any behavior like that and nobody else responds feel free to let me know. -- Atama頭 15:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had been thinking about you, but didn't want to trouble you. Thanks you for keeping this on your radar, performing exhaustive research, and sharing your incisive analysis and suggestions. Best.Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let me add one point. This editor has maintained that he has never edited Wikipedia before. Per your investigation, this appears to be an attempt to deceive or mislead other editors, and distort the appearance of consensus. And WP:SOCK states that: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry ... Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors ... distort consensus ... or otherwise violate community standards and policies." Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition ... the editor has just started editing again, again deleting RS-supported material, etc.... --Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the editor for 24 hours just to get the point across that they are being disruptive and that they need to discuss matters on the talk page. I basically blocked him as I would a first offense for edit-warring, although the actual block justification is a bit more complicated than that. I left a message on their talk page explaining that I know that they had a previous account, and warned them about what would happen if they chose to use the account again (especially to evade the block I enacted). I'm probably being a bit too lenient, but it's somewhat in the spirit of WP:ROPE. We'll see what happens from here. -- Atama頭 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you don't mind, since you are looking at the page, can you glance at the latest? This comes from the other side. The editor you blocked has, as you know, spent time deleting everything that might be negative about Indiggo. But now there is an edit war by an editor who at the Indiggo AfD, etc., has been strongly antagonistic to Indiggo (e.g., the only delete !voter at their current AfD). Final warning had been given, but reverts have continued. See here and here and here.Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this is all over whether or not the members of Indiggo are American? Sigh... Well, so far I've tried to stay uninvolved with the article itself (I commented on this latest AfD but only on the use of a source, not whether or not the article was worth keeping). I think I'd rather stay uninvolved. So I won't weigh in on the validity of either side. But the edit-warring about that is not good. I've left a message on the talk page, and I have to go by what's at WP:BLPSOURCES. -- Atama頭 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He's baaack. Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the last time. -- Atama頭 03:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for paying attention to this. You gave him/her/them every chance.Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to have to come here again. Since User:Dany4444 was blocked indef, we have had a series of edits to the Indiggo article by SPAs, either IP or newly formed, deleting the same material Dany deleted, and without explanation. What's the best way forward? Can you perhaps protect the article? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Epeefleche: I saw the edit by TroyMatthews37 yesterday. It leaped out immediately as suspicious, and I thought it could be DavidLeib/Dany4444 again. Here's the funny thing... I never blocked DavidLeib. If they want to edit with that account again, they can, but for some reason they haven't. Perhaps using sockpuppets for WP:SCRUTINY reasons? Who knows. In any case, it's difficult for me to conclude 100% that TroyMatthews37 is another sock and not just a fan (I made the connection between David and Dany partially because they communicate the same way, Troy made a single edit without a summary). But whether or not these are actually socks (both IPs are Canadian but one seems to come from Anjou and the other from Winnipeg, very far apart) they are being disruptive which is enough to justify temporary semi-protection. I'll have to look at the protection history to figure out a reasonable duration but I'll be protecting it. -- Atama頭 21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decided a month is appropriate. The last time protection was placed was for a couple of weeks, and it once had a one month protection back in 2009 for vandalism, so I figured a month might discourage people from shenanigans. If not it can be extended. -- Atama頭 21:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for you -- as is typical of you -- thoughtful and helpful analysis and action. Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following up

Hi Atama. Just thought I would see what ever happened with the articles on Qualcomm sales execs. Let me know if there's any way I can help. CorporateM (Talk) 00:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Sigh... Crap, I totally forgot that one, I'm so sorry. I think it got lost in the middle of everything else I had on my plate. Things are relatively quieter for me now, so I'll try to address it again. Thanks for reminding me.

Cool, thanks! Part of my charter with them is to do some cleanup where appropriate. Michael Luby is another one, but given his scientific pedigree, I think an AfD is less likely to succeed due to the bias' of the community. OTOH, sometime in the future I will probably be submitting one on their CEO to AfC, who I think meets the bar, because many of the media stories profile his entire background and most significant achievements. CorporateM (Talk) 14:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Hey, do you have an on-wiki example of Anand Chandrasekher asking to delete his article? I'm thinking of taking both his article and Jim Cathey to proposed deletion (I don't think a full AfD is necessary for either one). The Cathey article looks like it would be an easy deletion, but the Chandrasekher article could squeak by WP:N potentially with the coverage he received at CNet and MacRumors (the puff piece from TG Daily isn't very impressive). If I had something that I could point to where the subject requested deletion it might make it easier to suggest deleting the article. Neither one qualifies for speedy deletion. I haven't looked at the Luby article yet. -- Atama頭 16:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed my contact asking them to ask Anand to make his request directly on the article Talk page. It may take a bit as she is out of the office until Friday and there will probably be some back and forth after that, etc. etc. before we get the message directly to him. CorporateM (Talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He posted his request for article-deletion. CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: I proposed deletion on the Chandrasekher article, I don't see anything that merits speedy deletion (or I would have deleted it previously). If someone contests the deletion and doesn't substantially expand the article (showing notability for more than the one event) then I'll bring to AfD. In the mean time we'll see if it is deleted through PROD. -- Atama頭 01:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: I also took the time to review Jim Cathey. It definitely does not seem to satisfy WP:N. The only coverage I could find for him was from Qualcomm's own web site, and LinkedIn. I found newspaper coverage of a James J. Cathey in the Las Vegas Sun but it was a different person (at least I assume so, the article was about someone killed in the Iraq War in 2005, so I think it's a safe assumption). I'm also going to propose deletion for this article (again, I can find nothing justifying speedy deletion). -- Atama頭 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are much more thorough than I. Thanks for taking a look and prodding them. There are a couple dozen or so Qualcomm-related articles and those looked like two that could easily be scratched off the list. At some point I will work on improving one or two of the others. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daffyduck1234...

...(aka Sandboxxxxx and Ginsterama) has returned as User:Pomloverborn1999. No doubt, the duck is strong in this one. BMK (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, DoRD just check-user blocked. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! That means this is a notification made redundant by the Department of Redundancy Department. I appreciate the heads-up though. -- Atama頭 22:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samima khatun's sockpuppets

Hi! A while ago you blocked a sockmaster, Samima khatun. S/he keeps creating sockpuppets, and I wondered about how to deal with the edits made by those socks: revert them, leave them as they are or revert on a case by case basis? I asked at the Help Desk and was advised to talk to the blocking admin and let them deal with it. So here I am, asking for advice or your help in dealing with the sockmaster. Sjö (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjö: Wow, I had no idea this sockmaster has been so busy over the last couple of months! There is no black-and-white answer to the question about how to handle edits made by these sockpuppets. Technically we have no policy that mandates reverting edits done by an editor evading a block (with some exceptions; !votes at RfA should always be struck, as well as comments at other particular Wiki-space areas). But a persistent sockmaster like Samima khatun is unlikely to be unblocked by an administrator, so they could be considered to have a "de facto" site ban. In which case, WP:BMB could apply. But determining whether someone is effectively banned is subjective, and in cases like this where no formal site ban has been enacted you can't be 100% certain that others will agree that the editor should be considered banned. Also, per our banning policy you aren't absolutely required to revert edits from a banned editor (that would be a stupid policy to have; if a banned editor removed vandalism or a BLP violation it would be awful if we had to put it back).

In light of that, my advice is to take these edits on a case-by-case basis. If you see an edit from one of these sockpuppets (an editor who has been blocked as a sockpuppet, not one who you suspect is a sockpuppet or who is accused or mentioned in an SPI investigation) then look at the edit on its merits. If there seems to be anything objectionable about the edit, revert it. You're unlikely to be opposed in that because the person who made the edit is blocked and can't protest. If someone else does object to your revert, you can tell them that it was a problematic edit from someone using a persistent sockpuppet to evade a block, and ask what value there is in letting the edit stay. (An editor in good standing can vouch for the usefulness of any edit from a block-evading or banned editor, but in doing so they take responsibility for the edit and if the edit is disruptive then they could face the same consequences that they would if they were the one who had originally made the edit.) Don't feel required to revert every edit without discretion, but if you disagree with an edit made by a blocked sock it's pretty safe to revert it. -- Atama頭 17:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that made it much clearer! Sjö (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I appreciate your remarks in my defense at ANI, especially as I have no stomach for it. If you'd like to find people quick to personal attack because they confuse attacks on behavior or arguments as attacks on the person, look no further than ANI. It is as if they think they have some diplomatic immunity there to behave in exactly the ways they insist are simply intolerable and must be dealt with (severely!) at once. Any non-admin unlucky enough to be hauled to ANI for any reason whatsoever can always bet on having their motives impugned (for allegedly impugning others') on evidence best described as mind-reading and to face calls to ban the person rather than focus on the behavior, especially where the behavior is merely a different opinion they don't like. It's a place where there's endless concern that someone has wasted time by pursuing whatever they consider a frivolous issue but always lots of time to pick through someone's edit history to see if there's anything else to complain about. It's simply crawling with the most angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people to be found anywhere. Anyway, thank you for your comments, especially as I really had no interest in going there. Msnicki (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person who originally wrote WP:BOOMERANG (though it's been edited by many others since then) so I know what you mean about diplomatic immunity (I later added a section specifically about that issue). I make an effort sometimes to keep things in perspective there, because it's undoubtedly the page with the most attention, and when issues show up there instead of getting a few helpful responses, you get a lot... -- Atama頭 22:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I apologize for my reaction to this situation (apologizing to @Msnicki: for the strong rhetoric and to Atama for the time you had to spend responding to my hysterics). After sleeping on it, I realized it was a non-issue. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike arguing with people that I respect, as happened on ANI (and I include you in that Spike Wilbury). But I did what I felt was right even if I disagreed with other people I'd normally agree with. I'm sure you and others were sticking up for a couple of other admins who waded into difficult, thankless tasks, and got criticized for it. I tried to acknowledge that as well even while trying to also defend the person who was criticizing them for their right to make that criticism. I hope I didn't appear ungrateful to them, I'd be a hypocrite to dismiss the efforts of people who do something I myself am loathe to do often because of how difficult and time-consuming (and often unappreciated) it is. -- Atama頭 13:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NP, Spike Wilbury. We're all human. Msnicki (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Admin!!!

File:Attack dog.png	Wiki Attack Dog star
	I give this long overdue award to Atama for all her anti Vandalism work! Keep up the good work and keep editing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a he (I self-identified in preferences, and I have a userbox on my user page stating it) but that's a common misunderstanding. I'm not sure how I like being called an "attack dog" but I appreciate the sentiment anyway, thank you. -- Atama頭 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironheart Crown

Hi. My name is Eric Moon. I used to promote an MMA fight called the Ironheart Crown. There used to be a wikipedia page on us, but you deleted it, allegedly due to a lack of third party references. I was sad to see that the page was taken down because I was very proud of the events that we did, and it was pretty historic in the Chicago area.

Here is a third party resource that verifies most of the information that was contained in the article. If you could put it back online, I could work on getting more links to verify its content for you, and you could edit it as you see fit.

https://www.fightmagazine.com/mma-magazine/to-wear-the-crown-876/

I will find more for you as well.

Please email me to discuss. Thank you. Eric Moon (EMoon312@yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.172.26.2 (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. My name is Eric Moon. I used to promote an MMA show called the Ironheart Crown. There used to be a Wikipedia page about us. You deleted it because of an alleged lack of third party references. Below is one such reference verifying much of what was contained in the article.

https://www.fightmagazine.com/mma-magazine/to-wear-the-crown-876/

I was sad to see that the page was no longer available because I am very proud of the events that we did and they were historic in the Chicago area.

It would be great if you could put the article back up. I can work with you on providing more references to validate the content, and you could edit it as you see fit for content that is not verified.

Please Email me to discuss. Thank You. Eric Moon EMoon312@yahoo.com 216.172.26.2 (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@216.172.26.2: Hello Eric, I prefer not to email people I don't know but I'll reply here, hopefully you'll see this. The Ironheart Crown article was deleted via the proposed deletion process, and the article can be restored by just about anyone by request. So I will restore it for you. Usually I caution editors about the longevity of articles I restore from proposed deletions, because I don't delete articles that I feel meet our inclusion criteria, but the magazine article you linked to above shows fairly significant coverage which satisfies the complaint made in the deletion proposal. The article should have more coverage from at least another source (more than that preferably) to really consider it notable (and therefore less likely to be deleted via an articles for deletion discussion) but this is a good start. After I restore the article I'll add that link to the talk page to let people know about it.

I wanted to thank you too for disclosing your identity, when editors have close connections to the subject (whether it's for a present or past situation) it's helpful to know that. If you intend to edit the article significantly in the near future, I suggest you read our plain and simple guide to conflicts of interest, but you're definitely welcome to engage on the article talk page with other editors without objections. Minor and uncontroversial edits to the article itself (see examples here) are also generally accepted. And it's possible that if you edit the article in significant but helpful ways nobody will mind that either. But others may object so just keep it in mind. Thanks again! -- Atama頭 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balkanian`s word

Hi Atama. As far as I can tell, Balkanian`s word was replying to Alexikoua's comment which referenced IP 95.xxx through a diff. Balkanian`s word wanted to clarify that 95.xxx was him but he had nothing to do with the Swedish IPs. 95.xxx geolocates in Albania. I support his version of events. BTW, at the time of BW's reply there was only one Swedish IP present. I added the others after BW's reply. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UnbiasedVictory

As you are aware this editor will be back with his IP's etc.. - thus I have a question. What is the best way to report these? In the past I have tracked people like User talk:UrbanNerd by simply placing the IP address used on there talk page. This was so the admins involved would see a notice an thus take care of real problems. Is this a good way of doing it - or should we just report the IP's and other shocks to his/her SPI page? -- Moxy (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: It depends on the situation. If you notice a single IP with a lot of edits, report the IP to SPI. If you notice multiple IPs in the same range making similar edits to one page, report the article to WP:RFPP to have the page semi-protected. IP sockpuppets are a particular pain because stopping them is like trying to nail tapioca pudding to a tree. -- Atama頭 20:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. On a side note I am in the middle of looking at Oglesruins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is edit waring at the Mexico article. I then noticed the editor is not a native English speaker and is blanking things all over. Basically a classic case of "not here" in a few ways. Think I am going to metion him uat the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents as I dont have time to look at all the bad English edits and blanking of content done thus far. -- Moxy (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, yes, that editor is definitely a problem. They're editing promotionally, adding opinion to article space, and their grasp of English is poor (this edit for example is pretty bad). -- Atama頭 22:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of an article with "speedy deletion" status

Hello,

I am writing in regards of an article I’ve published back in March. It concerns BEYOO ONLINE – an online reputation management company.

I’ve seen the deletion log and the subject of the proposition, which is the following: “Company with no particular notability that does not pass WP:CORP. The only reference that refers to the company is a press release. Article reads as a promotional piece.”

Currently the article is located here: speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/BEYOOONLINE.COM As a part of another community, such as Wikipedia, I understand that there are certain guidelines to be followed. But if we are to compare the BEYOO ONLINE Wikipedia page and other online reputation management companies articles available on Wikipedia today, the BEYOO ONLINE article’s external links are being developed. This means more and more reliable external links are about to be added. Unlike the company’s biggest competitors, BEYOO ONLINE does not pay for expensive external links. The company’s articles are 100% original and unique, written by professionals in the online reputation management business field.

Considering the point of what I’ve explained above, I would like to point out another issue, which is concerning the Wikipedia philosophy in general. The BEYOO ONLINE article is an article, presenting a company to the Wikipedia community and visitors. But the company is also an organization of experts who have a lot more to share. Since the article has been putted for deletion, and here I have to admit that the deletion process has escalated to Speedy due to the fact that I haven’t seen the notifications. But again, I am reacting by adding reliable references. The company’s experts are willing to contribute to Wikipedia with additional educational and explanatory articles in the online reputation management field. It will be much easier to contribute if they have set the basics for more educational materials, such as “Online Reputation Management in Proactive Mode” and many others in an article like the BEYOO ONLINE.com one.

I am kindly asking you to review the article again and see if it fits the Wikipedia guidelines now. If this article for some reason does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines, please point out the part where it needs editing, so it can be edited immediately. It is important to have the article back online as soon as possible.

If there is something else I can do to speed up the process and immediately improve the content, I will be more than happy to do so.

Best regards!Activeormguide (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Activeormguide: The article was actually deleted through proposed deletion, not speedy deletion. There are a few important differences. The first being that the article is not deleted "speedily"; speedy deletion can lead to an article's deletion in a matter of hours, or for more urgent reasons (such as an article that only serves to personally attack someone) a matter of minutes. A proposed deletion takes a minimum of 7 days to be deleted. Another important difference is that a proposed deletion can be invalidated by any person objecting to its deletion. So in that 7 day period, if any editor (even the article creator) objects to its deletion it cannot be deleted. You did not make an objection in those 7 days despite being notified as soon as the deletion was proposed. Finally, the last (and at the moment, most important) difference is that an article deleted through speedy deletion can be restored if a discussion at deletion review determines that the deletion rationale was invalid. An article deleted through proposed deletion can be restored simply on request. Proposed deletions are intended to be uncontroversial, and are for articles that nobody wishes to keep. That is why we give a week's grace period for objection, and why any objections halts the process (and not only halts the process but prevents any future proposed deletions at that article), and why it can be restored at any time.

So with that being said, if you want the article restored, I'll restore it. But I do so with a warning. I don't act on proposed deletions simply because an article was not objected to within the timeframe. I check whether or not the deletion rationale appears to be valid, and in particular I try to determine whether or not the subject appears to be notable. In this case the article does not seem to be notable, and the claim that the article appeared promotional was true. Looking over the article now (as an administrator I can do that), I see that the article is at least promotional in tone, even though I wouldn't delete it as an obvious advertisement per our G11 speedy deletion criterion. But it does need some substantial fixes, or the article may find itself brought to an articles for deletion discussion. In those discussions, editors weigh in and give their opinions on whether or not an article should be kept or deleted, and why (according to our policies and guidelines). Usually this is determining whether an article subject is notable enough, though there are other factors that can lead to an article's deletion. If an article is deleted through that process, it cannot be restored on request, and it can't be recreated either unless the new version of the article is substantially different from the previous article and seems to address whatever concerns arise during that discussion.

I can tell you that the article's biggest problem is notability. You need to show that the company was the subject covered by multiple reliable sources. That means it has to be more than a passing mention. Reliable sources do not include press releases, or blog posts, or something that was published by the company itself. The most common reliable sources are books and news (or magazine) articles, usually most places that have some kind of editorial oversight are considered reliable. If you cannot find such references, then the article does not meet our inclusion standards and will likely be deleted via AfD.

The promotional tone is more difficult to pin down, it tends to be a bit more subjective. But I read a lot of marketing speech in the article. Phrases like "The essence of Online Reputation Management" are not encyclopedic. In addition, the article's focus seems to highlight what the company offers customers, rather than information about the company itself. Look at other tech company articles like Google or Microsoft or Oracle Corporation for an idea about what such an article should look like. As a new article it does not have to be fleshed-out so well, or as polished, since those articles have been expanded and refined for years with contributions from (possibly) hundreds of different people collaborating on them. But I think you'll notice a dramatic difference with the way the information is presented. Those articles do not look like an "About Us" page from the company's web site.

As a person with a conflict of interest, I strongly suggest that you read our plan and simple conflict of interest guide, which has advice and information for people in your situation. In your communication with me here you've already shown yourself to be much more cooperative than many people who have a COI with the articles they create and/or contribute to, but I still think it will be of great help to you. It's written plainly, not with a lot of the technical and legalistic language that many of our guidelines and policies may have. I myself have worked with COI editors many times, I've been a volunteer at the COI noticeboard for years (before I was even an administrator) so I can also offer advice if you need help. I'll restore the article now, and give you a chance to improve it, but I suggest you work to establish notability before too long or you may find the article deleted again before you have a chance to polish it. -- Atama頭 16:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Bmwz3hm - Heleen Mees

Bmwz3hm just reverted again, without reaching consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=prev&oldid=605517759 --TheCockroach (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bmwz3hm says Bmwz3hm's source is Heleen Mees herself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heleen_Mees&diff=prev&oldid=605522676 --TheCockroach (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCockroach: I'm not surprised on either front. Bmwz3hm has never denied a conflict of interest to my knowledge. The nature of Bmwz3hm's relationship has never been firmly established (speculating about it violates WP:OUTING) but there is certainly some sort of relationship between the two. It's a real mess, and I've been trying to be both fair and firm here. I'm tempted to block the editor again, but at the same time they've finally started contributing to the article talk page and I don't want to discourage that. -- Atama頭 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bmwz3hm just reverted again (with no consensus) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=605551419&oldid=605550436 --TheCockroach (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And what we're left with is a version of the article that nobody except Bmwz3hm supports. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Heleen Mees

Would it be considered edit-warring on my part if I revert this revert? --TheCockroach (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bmwz3hm sockpuppet investigation / Hong Kong IPs / meat-puppetry allegedly

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bmwz3hm

I don't want to violate the Wikipedia rule against outing, so I'm not sure how to phrase this: a person who is allegedly associated with Heleen Mees posted on her official twitter that she was going to a Hong Kong hotel but later deleted the tweet. So that person could have traveled to Hong Kong, and while there used the hotel's IP to make a new Wikipedia account used to revert/add the same content, then could have gone to a Hong Kong Apple store to use Apple's IP and also make a new Wikipedia account to revert/add the same content. In that case, this sockpuppet investigation wont end up saying its the same person due to the different locations (but not because it's not true allegedly) so what's the point of the investigation?

There was also a tweet (that I linked to at Heleen Mees' talk page) that showed meat-puppetry going on. After I posted it, the tweet was deleted. (If this comment violates the Wikipedia rule against outing, please delete/refactor it. Thank you!)--TheCockroach (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a CheckUser, so I don't know exactly what kind of information they are privy to with their tools. They keep that info secret so as not to give editors clues as to how to defeat it. I know that it's much more than an IP address. I'm fairly certain they can also get information about an editor's browser and version (because I've seen that mentioned in a CheckUser evidence discussion), and I suspect they may get ISP info, maybe even a MAC address. All of that helps them figure out if it's being done from the same computer. Someone using a home computer then flying to Shanghai and using a cyber café is going to show up as technically unrelated.

But it's worth at least checking. Any editors that are technically-related can be dealt with appropriately. Editors who aren't technically-related aren't necessarily "cleared", there is still behavioral analysis to look at. But it helps. -- Atama頭 17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Sant Singh Chatwal from vandalism?

Am I allowed to make the Sant Singh Chatwal wikipedia article semi-protected or is that something only administrators can do? There has been vandalism by IP users:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=605416124&oldid=605314896 by IP user 207.164.79.26
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=prev&oldid=605293432 by IP user 207.164.79.26
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=605103898 by IP user 207.164.79.52

--TheCockroach (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The three most recent vandalism edits above (from April 21 to 23, 2014) of the Sant Chatwal article have the same exact content of older vandalism edits. These are the older ones:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=498469986&oldid=464571068 by IP user 207.164.79.116
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=392067921&oldid=387668386 by IP user 74.210.40.55
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=373227900&oldid=373052036 by user Kochank

--TheCockroach (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCockroach: The tools to add or remove protection from a page are restricted to administrators. Requests for protection (or to remove protection) are generally made at WP:RFPP. Pages are usually semi-protected when multiple IPs and/or new accounts are causing unambiguous disruption (like vandalism or BLP violations) to an article, many acts in a short period of time (multiples per day). They can also be semi-protected if such edits are being done more slowly but over a very long period of time (though that is less common). And it has to be current. Essentially, the disruption has to be (1) at a high level and (2) very recent. Also, if there is something that is making an article temporarily higher-profile than usual (a person's recent death or a related controversy, an election, some related news event getting a lot of coverage) administrators can semi-protect for a duration that anticipates how long that extra attention may last. Full protection is normally extended to articles where there is some kind of persistent edit war involving a large number of people, and it's done as an alternative to blocking a whole bunch of people at once and forces people to stop editing the article and resolve their differences on the talk page. Full protection is typically removed once the dispute is settled and people are ready to get back to constructively editing the article. -- Atama頭 13:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks for your response. --TheCockroach (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donation Link

Please show me in Wikipedia guidelines where it says a donation link is not allowed. How can Wikipedia expect to get donations from sponsors and not allow its editors to as well? This is hypocritical. Peteymills (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteymills: I already linked to it on the COI noticeboard, but I'll link to it again. It is at WP:ELNO. A link to a donation page is prohibited for both reasons #4 and #5; "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". In addition, WP:LINKSPAM at our spam/advertisement guideline states that "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." It explicitly includes user pages, and you're promoting donations for yourself, which is definitely prohibited under these guidelines. -- Atama頭 17:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't these refer to links within articles, not user pages? I'm not promoting or selling any "products" here. I'm just giving users some information about myself and asking them to help support me in my efforts. Plus, wouldn't we expect a user page (as opposed to an article) to contain at least some "self-promotion"?

The external links guideline is mostly intended for article external links, true, though some of the prohibitions there would apply anywhere. The more relevant guideline is at our spam guideline, which applies to any project page, and the prohibited link criteria I mentioned above at the external links guideline is also prohibited there. As I pointed out before, the prohibition on spam links explicitly includes user pages. By soliciting donations you're selling your contributions in general. That is the basis of your donation request. I don't judge you personally for having such a donation page, you just can't use Wikipedia to do it.

Our userpage guideline has examples of what is acceptable on a user page. It states that, "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." You are also explicitly prohibited from "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)." You also can't include "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia." -- Atama頭 17:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, on the German Wikipedia i had a link to a blog on my user page, which was denied there and subsequently added to the German Wikipedia Spamlist. I only posted the link on my user page and 2-3 times on my talk page. No notice, no warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They might be less forgiving there, each Wikipedia project (and other Wikimedia projects aside from Wikipedia) have their own communities, cultures, policies, and guidelines. What works at one project may not work at another. That's the consequence of having most of the project be established via consensus, and having different groups of people at each place. The exception is that whatever is dictated by the WMF applies to every project. -- Atama頭 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the admission of self-promotion, what about his wiki resume, errr.... his user page? WP:MFD? Template:Noindex? Just let it be? Certainly lots of other people chronicle their contribs in like fashion, though they don't usually admit to doing it to market themselves or generate offsite traffic/donations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it some thought. It doesn't really have anything objectionable on it, aside from that link to the donation page it was a pretty standard user page. The link his donation page and link to his personal web page were the only autobiographical things there, everything else was concerned with his Wikipedia contributions. The only concern I have is with the link to his personal page, he could change it to be another donation page, but given that he won't be a contributor any longer it's unlikely that he'll get many page visits. So I'm not that worried. If in the future his personal site changes, we can remove the link on his user page per WP:LINKSPAM. Until then it's actually helpful, especially as people review his contributions and his work as potential reliable sources that link provides biographical and professional information that can be used during the analysis. -- Atama頭 23:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Although the Noindex template would preserve the content while helping defeat the marketing intention, by preventing the search engines from indexing his page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought about that too. If you want to add one feel free. It does reduce the page's visibility while still making it available for someone reviewing his credentials. -- Atama頭 23:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem consistent. Thanks, I'll do that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dopeslap, thanks for posting the template, I see now that I erroneously put it on his talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this was from a 5 min quickie look

• [[14]]
• [[15]]
• [[16]]

I took no action NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: So User:Despres is an individual who has been blocked for more than 3 years. I don't see what on that user page is particularly objectionable. The fact that it has sat like that for years without anyone deleting it suggests that nobody else has a problem with it either. The editor was blocked as a sockpuppet.

The User:J.K.Herms/drft_art_on_splmtoday page was a sandbox while the editor developed this article, which was deleted through proposed deletion. The first version of the article was deleted via speedy deletion as G11 (promotional) but the article based off of that draft wasn't. I don't see any need to delete it, it seems harmless sitting in user space.

The User:Henrickson#Donations section on the other hand does concern me. It's different than the donation link that Peteymills had. It seems like semantics but I think it's important. The difference is that Peteymills was asking for donations to help him out financially as he develops his career in science. Henrickson is saying that people can thank him for his edits with donations. The important distinction is that Henrickson is asking for money because of his Wikipedia work, while Peteymills was asking for money for his non-Wikipedia work. Also, I didn't block Peteymills solely for the donation link. It was also because he had declared that his purpose on Wikipedia is to collect donations and to promote his scientific work. Henrickson hasn't made such a declaration.

That doesn't mean that it's okay. We used to have a bounty board where a person could offer a reward for work that someone did on Wikipedia. Someone may offer financial compensation for bringing an article to GA status, for example. But it was shut down last year after this discussion, and also amid the growing concerns about paid editing from the community and from the WMF itself.

What I think I want to do is open a thread at WP:AN to ask other administrators their thoughts. I won't mention Henrickson, I don't want to call someone out who seems to be a productive and non-disruptive editor, but if other admins support enforcing WP:LINKSPAM to remove these donation links then I'll try to have a talk with him about removing it. He's not around very much, he did make an edit yesterday (by coincidence) but he's made less than a dozen edits all year, and doesn't seem to be editing heavily since 2008. So he may not even respond. If too much time goes by without a response I'll probably just remove it, and leave him a suggestion to contact me if he wants it put back. But we'll see what happens. I'll let you know when I have a thread put together so that you can participate if you want to.

I will say I don't plan to go on a crusade to clean up everyone's user pages. We have thousands of such pages and doing something like that would probably take up all my time, and I think that problems like sockpuppet investigations and COI disputes take precedence. If someone wants to do a "no panhandling taskforce" then that's fine. But of course I want to make sure that there's a consensus that our guidelines support such a stance, and if they don't then maybe we need to change guidelines and/or make a new one. -- Atama頭 17:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The reward board is still up. I think I was confusing it and the bounty board. The bounty board worked much the same way, except money was paid to WMF instead of to the editor making the changes. Why people wanted the bounty board shut down and wanted to keep the reward board is beyond me. It seems that paying money directly to editors would be a bigger concern about paid editing. But the discussion to delete it didn't have consensus, so it stayed around. I still think that with the growing concerns about paid editing that asking for donations would be frowned upon, but the presence of the reward board does deflate that position slightly. -- Atama頭 17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it; I only did a cursory search in reply to a question at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Panhandling, out of curiousity to know how common this is. I don't plan to anything more about it, though I may revisit the issue later. Thanks for telling me about the reward/bounty boards. Those are interesting ideas, I'll have to review them later when there's time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, awesome, you already started the discussion. That's as good a place as any I guess. I'll weigh in too, thanks so much. I'm glad to see that nobody there disagrees that asking for donations on user pages is a problem. -- Atama頭 19:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...... disagrees yet .....*g NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed some Socks

Recently you blocked User:Wild Wolf for operating sock puppets. Apparently he uses way more socks than I realized and is currently avoiding the block by using User:Mad Man American. Do I need to start another sock puppet or is this now a more severe situation? --Molestash (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more severe in that I'll be blocking both Wild Wolf and this sockpuppet indefinitely. Initially, Wild Wolf was only blocked for a month to show him that using sockpuppets was not going to be tolerated and in the hope that he'd stop. But clearly he's been using a sockpuppet account for the past 4 years. I'll go to SPI with this, just so that this newest sockpuppet is on record. If another named account appears, you can feel free to either let me know or file it at SPI (or both). The great thing about SPI is that each case associated with a sockmaster like Wild Wolf gets archived to the same page so that in the future all of the history and evidence associated with each sock is collected in one place, making it easier to find other sockpuppets. -- Atama頭 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another TekkenSock

Atama, apologies for going directly to you on this, but there's another TekkenJinKazama sock that's causing trouble for a couple of other editors. Recreating articles, accusing editors of being sockpuppets, etc. The usual stuff in other words. There's plenty of evidence to make this an open and shut case but they are being a bit disruptive so I'm coming here to ask if you'd take a look and circumvent the usual SPI process as you've handled some of the previous socks. Appreciate any help! Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atama - appreciate the help! Ravensfire (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. :) -- Atama頭 21:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LudoVicar

Thanks for your post at my SPI report. It's been there a week and a half and I was wondering what was happening to it. Your comment on Alpacatracker was interesting. I only got involved in this article in a major way in the last few months: I have a list of others (that included Ellymental before the recent posting) that I suspect are from the same sock farm, but thought the right approach was to wait till they got reactivated to post an SPI. All the socks and potential socks have particular issues and approaches in common which if you spend some some time looking at them, which (sadly) I have, become quite obvious. I think it's also fairly obvious who the sockmaster must be. Looking at the history of the article since about 2006 - and once again (sadly) I've done that too - I believe that this sock farm has achieved a long-running and consistent distortion of the article. There is definitely a repeating cycle of the article being edited in a way which the sock farm wants, followed by other editors coming in and restoring NPOV etc followed by the sock farm gradually over months or years bringing it back to the way it wants. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble of taking a look at it.DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the case is on my watchlist now, and whatever the CU result (whether it shows that they're related, unrelated, or that the other sockpuppets are stale) I'll continue to pursue it. -- Atama頭 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the result: I agree I think that this tangibly connects the 2009 SPI socks with the LudoVicar group. I do think that there would be a benefit in merging the two in the archive to give the full picture when future issues arise. This is a very long-running problem - it might help others in the future piece it together more quickly instead of relying on those of us who have been involved being around to remember. I don't know how this works and who makes a call like that. DeCausa (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa: That is the job of the SPI clerks, to figure out how cases are related and merge them if warranted, and to rename cases if a new sockmaster is determined. I guess I'd be called an "admin patroller" (which is really any administrator who helps out at SPI, it's not an official title or anything). So I can't make that determination. I can make a suggestion to merge cases but I'd probably need to put evidence together to convince a clerk (or even find a clerk and ask them directly), my suspicions won't be enough. At the very least, everything in an SPI case is preserved in the archive, so the links made between the two cases and left for the investigation will be present for anyone who checks the archives. I think if more old accounts get reactivated the way that Ellymental did, and are connected to that sockfarm, the stronger the case that we have identical groups of socks and the more likely the cases can be merged. -- Atama頭 15:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Humbly awarded to you in recognition of your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. This is the third time you attended a noticeboard case in which I am accused with a mixture of COI, sockpuppetry, paid editing, etc. – well, the accusers where always in such hurry that couldn't make up their mind as to which – but always, you dedicated a lot of time and effort to analyze and dissect the claim without showing a sign of taking sides. You amaze, inspire and scare me. Thanks you. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, but I didn't know I scared anyone but my wife or relatives. -- Atama頭 23:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I´d like to add my voice to this praise. I rarely do more than read at WP:ANI, but I find your contributions there very reassuring. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IHTS IBAN

As you made the call in the earlier thread, I thought I would note that I made this comment in relation to the next reported incident because I think this whole situation sucks users into a time-sink-vortex with no productive outcome for the project. It's not specifically intended to imply that I think a block is necessarily out of order or not though; it's just I think this sort of thing will unnecessarily continue regardless of how these requests are entertained today or tomorrow or thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: Yeah this literally is giving me a headache. (Not your notification to me, which I greatly appreciate, just the whole situation.) It's enough to make you feel like a tired dad on a long road trip whose kids are in the back seat poking each other and yelling. I just want to turn the car around and go back. That being said, IHTS looks to be the main instigator here, between following MaxBrowne to this page (which should be prohibited by the IBAN though I will check to be sure) as well as continuing to beat a dead horse with the "narcissist" garbage again.

I find that editors doing this are just like children exploring boundaries, trying to see what they can get away with. The best response is to show them that they can't. I'll most likely block but not without looking further, I don't intend to make an annoyed, knee-jerk block (I try to be careful with that tool). I don't agree that this sort of thing will unnecessarily continue, if one or both editors refuse to stop the behavior they'll end up indefinitely blocked and/or banned (exactly because what they're doing is wasting time and resources better spent on other things and they are a net negative to the project). -- Atama頭 15:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the IBAN is the standard "don't refer to one another, interact with one another, refactor each others' comments, edit each others' user talk page" bans. It's not saying editors can't follow each other to pages. In addition, I know that IHTS is very interested in chess matters so it's not unreasonable to think that he would have gone to that page just because it's a chess issue, and all of IHTS's comments were about and toward a different editor, not MaxBrowne, so I'm not going to hold his edits on that page against him. Continuing to bring up the narcissist thing, though, that is an issue. I'll weigh in on ANI and act appropriately. Thank you again. -- Atama頭 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW, IHTS may also have a point in his response to the block - that he didn't read the remainder of the earlier ANI thread after his last comment, and therefore did not see your warning not to bring the "narccisist" incident up again (as his name was not linked to alert him that you were commenting in response to him, and as it was not brought up on his user talk page specifically). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Diff to comment regarding your previous input found here: [17] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]