User talk:Athaenara/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Athaenara's Archive 4  


This is an archive of discussions from November 2006 through April 2007.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 3   Archive 4   Archive 5 →


Contents

Conflict of interest discussions

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

COI discussions 2006

Aaron Klein

Your helpful contribution to the discussion was here: Talk:Aaron Klein#Edit warring. Recently User:MikeJason has appeared and begun to make some of the same changes previously reverted when they were made by anons. MikeJason (talk) (contribs) is a new contributor to Wikipedia. Sigh.. Can you advise patience, or something? I kind of have two choices: (1) forget it, and think peaceful thoughts. (2) Propose the Aaron Klein article for deletion. (3) anything else? My colleague in POV-fighting, Robocracy, had earlier sponsored the page for semi-protection, which has recently expired. What can you do about logged-in contributors who misbehave, when they seem to be single-purpose accounts? EdJohnston 23:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The repeated reversions (cf. Wikipedia:Edit war) both before and after registration, in deliberate defiance of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, confirm that this miscreant is stubbornly resistant to the policy. I can personally do nothing but remark on it (I'm not an admin) but it's obvious the article should be kept and he should be blocked from editing it. — Æ. 00:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Athaenara. Recent updates at Aaron Klein by an anonymous contributor, mostly labelled 'minor edit' and 'brief add', often restoring previously-deleted material, deserve your attention, should you still be interested in this obviously non-earthshaking issue. I wonder if writing to WorldNetDaily would do any good. Perhaps we could denounce them for tampering with Wikipedia. EdJohnston 00:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, it's on my watch list, too. 192.118.11.112 (contribs) is undoubtedly MikeJason (contribs). He didn't puff it up promotion style this time, but WND links are still too numerous and other newsmedia links (which he should find if they're out there) are still too few. –Æ. 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Single purpose accounts update

→ See Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 1#Single purpose accounts.

User SandyBMW identifies himself as Aaron Klein

See this item from the history log of the image that was recently posted to the Aaron Klein article!

10:30, 21 January 2007 . . SandyBMW (Talk | contribs) . . 70×123 (5,234 bytes) (== Summary == From WorldNetDaily. == Fair use for Aaron Klein == {{Fair use in}} {{WithPermission}} taken from: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/speakers/aklein.asp Note: This is Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily, holder of the copyright. I give Wikipedia) ...etc...

The new tags you added to the Aaron Klein page seem appropriate. EdJohnston 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that image attribution also, and almost went down the rathole of tracking every image those user/IPs have ever added. Maybe another time, or another wikipedian ;-D   For now, I vented my wrath on the seven now eight nine talk pages. — Athænara ✉ 20:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Since anons have been removing the tags that you placed, I think this is enough grounds to ask for semi-protection for at least 30 days, at least until the problems with the article are addressed at WP:COI/N. Your call. EdJohnston 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100%—go for it! –Æ. 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I left this request at WP:RFPP:
Semi-protection requested for this page. The issue is not conventional vandalism, this page is constantly attacked by POV editors, most of them (recently) anonymous. In the last 30 days two different anons have removed tags from the page referring to the POV issues. Article is currently awaiting attention at WP:COI/N. I'm requesting a 'tprotect' for 30 days, which should be long enough for COI/N to take some action or give us advice. EdJohnston 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The request was declined:...There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. If you see POV-pushing even after IP users fail to participate in discussions, then revert. Nishkid64 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC) EdJohnston 19:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see Nishkid's point. Compared to articles with daily vandals or revert wars, this one's problems are small potatoes. It's reasonable to suppose that a few editors can keep up with intermittent problems. Now, about that sockpuppet thing ... (see next subsection (WW SSP); it's been there awhile.) Though frankly it is a low level problem, however aggravating over time—perhaps editor aggravation-tolerance needs to be adjusted a notch or two higher ;-D. — Æ. ✉ 21:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
WP SSP

The sock puppet report form requires designating one puppetmaster among the socks. If you had to make the call in this case, which would it be? — Athænara ✉ 14:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fluent with this process. All I recall is that User:MikeJason made his first edit to the AK article on 22 November after Robacracy succeeded in getting the Aaron Klein page semi-protected on 17 November. This suggests that Mike Jason was a reincarnation of a previous IP. After protection went away on 5 December the POV warriors must have decided to go back to the safety of anonymity, and Mike Jason disappeared again. Mike J. never responded to any questions left on his talk page. His last edit was on 4 December 2006.
The oldest IP account was 192.118.11.112, the one that originally drew my attention to the Aaron Klein page, because he persisted in making eccentric edits to Floating point that I didn't understand. My first message to that anon was on 24 October, and I never got a response. That anon is still active; his last edit was on 28 January.
While you didn't ask about this, it occurs to me that the Aaron Klein page could be stubbified, because there are almost no reliable sources in the conventional sense. If we rule out blogs as unreliable (and there is some justification for that view at WP:RS) and rely only on printed sources, then the AK article, completely sourced from print publications, would become very small. One could well argue that WND and ConWebWatch are not reliable sources. I still can't believe that 'Klein barred from Syria' is accepted as a legitimate external link in the AK article. Note that even trivial biographic info, like the following sentence, has no reliable source: "Klein attended Jewish schooling from nursery through college." If the POV warriors want to pretend that we don't exist, and WP standards don't exist, then applying the letter of the law to an extreme degree might be a reasonable approach. EdJohnston 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Userfy
And another idea: userfication of autobio, disambiguation of name. Sample of the latter:
"Aaron Klein may refer to:
  • Aaron Klein—one of the "Ghosts of Gold Hill," murdered in 1842 in the Randolph Mine on Gold Hill, near Concord, North Carolina, in what is now the Charlotte metropolitan area.
  • Aaron Klein—mathematician, PH.D. (1966) Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
  • Aaron Klein—designer of "Body War," an AIDS medical educational game in which "human immunity cells struggle against invading viruses, bacteria and tumors" 1986, BT Games.
  • Aaron Klein—member of Sierra College Board of Trustees (as of 2004).
  • Aaron Klein—2006 candidate, Montgomery County, District 20, Maryland House of Delegates; chief economist (five years) for Maryland State Senator Paul Sarbanes' Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
  • Aaron Klein—reporter, World Net Daily.
  • Aaron Klein—various high school and college athletes…"
(Just kidding about that last one…) — Athænara ✉ 16:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

→ (Full linkage version of list above in Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 1#February 2007 status of the article.)

→ Update: Aaron Klein (disambiguation) now exists. — Athaenara ✉ 08:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, but then you'd need articles on all those people! EdJohnston 21:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, right, I'm writing the whole encyclopedia by myself—you got the memo, I see ;-P — Athænara ✉ 21:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
NewsMax

Athaenara, I've looked at the NewsMax article and it seems that there's POV-pushing there, as well. As it seems to me — and this is just a suspicion — NewsMax may be actually employing people to edit Wikipedia, the same way that Microsoft has. I'm User:Robocracy (the one who originally brought this Aaron Klein article to your attention) and I rarely use Wikipedia anymore (too lazy to even login now). A report for "long-term vandalism," including names of all of those who have pushed POVs on Aaron Klein, Newsmax and other Newsmax-related articles would be helpful. As it stands now, the Newsmax article itself looks like an advertisement and the "criticism of Newsmax" section I saw there months ago has since been totally removed. 69.138.31.96 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It was good to hear from you again, Robocracy; I'm sorry you're not an active editor these days. I'm giving this newsmax thing some thought. (Aside: Have I become a magnet for POV issues in articles about conservative news reportage?) — Athænara ✉ 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, since this page is well-organized and archived, it has become a sensible place for people to file new info. You will soon have the data to write a WP history of important COI debates.. I like the {{Primarysources}} banner currently seen at Newsmax. If AK didn't have so many banners already, it would seem appropriate there as well. EdJohnston 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources—excellent point—added it. — Athænara ✉ 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Aliweb

Hello Athaenara! Since you've been on the job, I have felt free to ignore the constant POV issues on the Aaron Klein page, and I've made no further edits (since 13 Nov). We have a similar problem now over at Aliweb, where the topic may be just notable enough to prevent deletion, but there is a troublesome user (with the same name as the page). Perhaps the remedy there is something like 'stubbification', where everything not verifiable is removed. I'm not sure I have as much patience as you do to keep tidying up the page after multiple assaults; deletion (if appropriate) would be simpler. If you could just look at the page and give me advice, that would be very helpful. EdJohnston 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend the Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfC) process, for "disputes over article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." The problem user's contribs page is also pertinent: Special:Contributions/Aliweb. –Æ. 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Ed—I took another look at Aliweb, Talk:Aliweb, and User:Aliweb (talk) this morning, to see if there had been any improvement since your last post about it here, and was so repelled I posted about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Aliweb. Maybe you can add your considerably more than two cents? Athænara ✉ 12:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. My only new finding since December is that Wikipedia:Username has an entry for

"Usernames that promote a company or website: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked."

There is a section later on that page explaining how to ask that a username be changed. When the problem is commercial promotion rather than an offensive name, It's not as simple as taking it to WP:AIV, but there is a procedure.

A second possible step would be to file a user conduct WP:RFC asking the user to abstain from editing his company's own site. This is a heavyweight remedy that can actually lead to Arbcom action, not something I'd lightly do. A third possibility is an AfD debate about Aliweb. That's beginning to seem more reasonable. EdJohnston 15:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

COI Noticeboard

There are (as you know if you've been reading Talk:Aliweb) at least six IPs involved, anywhere from one to perhaps as many as three people. Following advice obtained on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Aliweb, I posted on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: look there for Aliweb in one of the humongous noticeboard-standard section headings. —Æ. ✉ 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your very thorough writeup at WP:COI/N. I didn't know there were so many IPs that worked on it. Do you have a remedy in mind? I am somewhat familiar with how administrators respond to WP:AIV but I don't know what standards they will use at WP:COI. EdJohnston 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. All Wikipedians share the burden with admins, and non-sock editors of that article have shouldered quite a bit of it. Whoever was using the socks is indifferent to Wikipedia policies and equally indifferent to efforts of Wikipedians to maintain them. Let's just let the administrative processes work now. Athænara 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It turns out the WP:COI/N process has only existed since 27 December. The complete record of their past decisions is here. Once started, the process should be allowed to run, but I note that AfD might be simpler :-). I believe that the notability of Aliweb could be strongly contested for lack of any printed sources. If WP:WEB is the criterion we would have:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations..

I doubt that any of this exists for Aliweb. The current references are blog postings, usenet messages and web sites. EdJohnston 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As cited in my first post on WP:COI/N, there is at least one printed source: Jeremy M. Norman's From Gutenberg to the Internet: A Sourcebook on the History of Information Technology, 2005, Norman Publishing, hardcover 889 pages, ISBN 0-930405-87-0 (also carried on amazon). I find WP:COI/N's emergence from the starting gate encouraging (cf. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1). —Æ. ✉ 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. While I do see that Aliweb is mentioned in a timeline associated with the book, the name 'Aliweb' does not appear in the index of the book itself (the index can be downloaded as a PDF). So one might have to lay hands on a physical copy of the book to confirm that it mentions Aliweb. (There is a note that the online version of the timeline is expanded from the one in the book). EdJohnston 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The spamming crew has returned with, so far, nine posts to the article talk page (in less than one hour) and five edits to the article (in less than five minutes). I've updated the WP:COI/N thread and asked on the talk page whether it is in fact the right venue. —Æ. ✉ 11:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Athaenara. Though I believe you did the right thing by filing the issue at WP:COI/N, I just noticed that (a) MER-C, the person who actually closes issues, is not an administrator (perhaps we should propose him for RFA :-), (b) He's on Wiki break from January 10 until January 28. I imagine his recommendations are heard carefully by administrators, though. EdJohnston 22:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
For a few bumbling amateurs, I'd say we haven't done a half-bad job of extricating Aliweb from aliweb.com's clutches. — Athænara ✉ 06:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I archived the monstrous thing. How ironic it is that the mass of information about the disruptive and tendentious socks is greater than that of the article itself by a factor of 100 or more. — Æ. ✉ 12:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 2 RFA

In case this interests you: (RfA). Not uncontested, though. EdJohnston 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — Æ. ✉ 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

→ Addendum: MER-C 2 RFC closed 16:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC). (Did not pass.)

Suite101 dot com AfD

An article that you have been involved in editing, Suite101.com, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --A. B. 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks — I have not edited the article except to support its deletion (date:time 2006:UTC):
Hi -- you did not have to go to all that work above -- I was just routinely putting the standard "Adw" notification template on the various editors' pages per the WP:AfD procedure. Looking at the language now, I see the tone almost sounds vaguely like that of an indictment, which I certainly did not intend! (I just wanted to give a friendly notification.) --A. B. 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem—I like WikiWork, it increases my WikiSkills ;-) — Æ.

→ Addendum: AfD closed. Article deleted 06:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC).


COI discussions 2007

PSK Vanderbilt

Thanks for the invitation to weigh in on the PSK discussion on the Vanderbilt University talk page. My own argument against including any mention of PSK, of course, is that it's trivia. I hope adding another voice to the discussion does some good! Esrever 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivia, and you're quite welcome, it was great to see a third voice involved again! Athænara ✉ 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I have not, in fact, ever submitted an RfC. I certainly have no objections to you doing exactly that, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esrever (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome. And, as I tried to make clear in my posting on the talk page, please feel free to edit the words I added in any way that you think improves the article, per WP:OWN. My only request had to do with not removing everything I added without a prior posting on the talk page. John Broughton | Talk 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll restore the full name—{{fact}} was only needed when the unsubstantiated characterisation was also in the line. Athænara ✉ 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tire companies

→ (Discussion pertained to information in the following list and table.)


List


Table

User IP
    
Edits
    
Redirects
    
2006
    
2007
    
Registered
203.49.235.50     50     no     Oct, Dec     Jan     no
211.29.3.48     25     no     Feb, Dec         no
211.29.3.61     16     no     Dec         no
211.29.2.142     10     yes     Dec         no
211.29.13.6     3     no     Aug, Nov         no
211.29.13.50     3     yes         Jan     no
211.29.2.233     2     no     Oct         no
211.29.13.235     1     yes     Dec         no
Mobile 01     count     no     Nov, Dec     Jan     yes


You wrote:

"Your 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC) W:3O request is still on that page after more than 48 hours—has it been resolved? Athænara ✉ 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)"

and:

"LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006.
Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing two days later, 20 November 2006.
They may be the same person. —Æ. ✉   22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)"

…I have been gone for a bit. I will check. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)…

(Lengthy, contentious, misleading post returned to sender.)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_boot_Mobile_01… Travb (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We will let the evidence speak for itself. At least three independent admins: User:Robdurbar, User:Woohookitty, and User:Wangi strongly disagree with [that user]. How much more work do I have to put into this before this editor is booted indefinitely? It is amazing and frightening how much destruction one person can make on wikipedia. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Diffs are useful because they smooth the path for admins who are studying the factual details of a problem. It's a lot of work, but all Wikipedians share the burden with admins. You could look at the Aliweb section on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for some recent (not necessarily the best) examples. —Æ. ✉ 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#Contribs)

As you may have noticed, the situation has escalated.

I have tried really, really hard to keep WP:NPA, but the "Lengthy, contentious, misleading" attacks (diff) are continuing. I placed a warning on [that user] page to attempt to stop the WP:NPA violations.

Although plenty of admins has condemed [that user] behavior, no one is assisting in this situation beyond the page protections. There seems like a collective yawn, even though this story could be potentially scandalous, like the WP:Congressional Staffer Edits.

What more can we do?

I am glad that no one helped before, because if they would have banned [that user] outright, I would have never found out that Bridgestone is editing these pages (Firestone was bought out by Bridgestone) … Should I file Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? The normal channels of reporting abuse seemed to have failed. Travb (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser is conclusive, I am going on wikibreak, you can email me if you wish :) thanks for being one of the first people after the page was protected to defend me, you deserve a barnstar, along with the four admins who helped me in this case. Travb (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... Enjoy your break... —Æ. ✉ 13:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You may want to look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01#Third opinion afresh when you return. Athænara ✉ 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
User_talk:AnonEMouse#Sockpuppet_Case … Travb (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
…[that user] is shameless. I wonder how long until it all catches up… — Æ. ✉ 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
("Do not stir" message posted by previous offender returned to sender.)
  • Account/talk page deletion logs, 14:48 & 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) "user-request, right to vanish."
  • User talk archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.

The Embarcadero

Thanks. Well, I might not have much to add to wikipedia, so I figured i'd take some of the load off those who do. feba 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(In re "vigilant reversion of spam" on Feba's talk page.) — Æ.

Newton Falls, Ohio

Thanks for your kind and wise words. I plan not to reply further unless NewtonFallsLeader (talk · contribs) can provide links to policies as I asked. If no one pays attention, maybe he'll go away, or proceed as you suggest. If he starts adding the link again, would my removing what I consider to be linkspam be subject to WP:3RR in your opinion? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I think for now it's best not to revert soon but rather let that issue remain in suspension, so to speak. The other guy is clearly a single purpose editor. Let him busy himself spamming the same lengthy texts on what, three talk pages and one noticeboard so far? Irritating, but there's so much more to Wikipedia—keep your cool, and keep the faith. — Athænara ✉ 05:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again - I appreciate your help. My user page was vandalized for the first time ever today by an IP whose edits to Newton Falls, Ohio I had removed (but not NewtonFallsLeader). When it rains, it pours ;-). P.S. I also think you are the first person to correctly use the umlaut in my username (I dropped it to make things easier). Congrats! Ruhrfisch 03:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC) (aka Rührfisch)
I'm probably not the only one who suspects a connection between that anon vandalism and the other brouhaha … — Athænara ✉ 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The thought had crossed my mind too. Ruhrfisch 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rührfisch, has this thing gone away yet? — Athænara ✉ 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The dispute has been partially resolved. User NewtonFallsLeader read at least some of your comments on this matter and seems to finally realize why his insistence on including the link does not meet WP:EL. I told him that specific subpages of the website he runs could probably be used as references for the Newton Falls, Ohio article (for example the website lists the winners of the 2006 Old Car Show, which is mentioned in the article).
Our last exchange was my explaining the differences between references and external links again. I have not heard anything from him since that on Feb. 11th, nor has he made any edits since then… I archived our past exchanges on the Newton Falls, Ohio talk page at his request (he wanted to get rid of them, but also asked how to do this). I thought he was on his way to becoming a productive editor who contributed to articles (or at least one article ;-) but I am not so sure what will happen now.
The one unresolved issue is his appeal to WP:AMA. I figured that was not a huge deal as he seems to accept the idea of what meets WP:EL now, and is perhaps an inactive account. Thanks again for your help and wise counsel. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do to be of assistance, Ruhrfisch 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. The user hasn't edited the WP:AMA page in the past three weeks or so—I guess he'd withdraw it if he knew how. — Æ. ✉ 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you've archived our discussion about this. In any case you may be interested in the current poll at Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio. Or you may wisely run the other way and never look back ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch 11:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, archived too soon, I see! (Brought it back.) — Athænara ✉ 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And back it goes. I have Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio and the AMA page on my watchlist. — Æ. ✉ 04:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any advice on how to proceed with the other user you referred to ...? I have been letting the RFC run its course but since the process is supposed to end with all parties agreeing, I don't see that happening there. I had thought about opening an RFC on the User (or telling him about it and letting him be hoisted by his own petard assuming he would open one on me). I have also thought of doing nothing since he seems only to respond and react lately. I just figure an RFC that leads to him being blocked as a user or blocked from editing his favorite page is better than having to go to ArbCom with this. Since I have not been involved in a situation like this before though, I am not sure what the options are. Thanks, as always, Ruhrfisch 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Sorry to have gotten you involved in this mess. I don't think you're an admin (and apologize if you are), but if you ever have an RFA I would support it. R

Yikes, don't scare me like that—thanks for the confidence, but adminship is not something I want. As to the other, you're right, all parties are not going to agree: all parties except one do. Don't worry about that. It was an informal process with no mandated conclusion.
Wikiquette alerts and user conduct RFC come to mind, but this is a clueless pest who will abuse any and all processes and participants. Arbcom is farther up the chain and not, I think, anywhere this will ever need to go.
Ignore him for a few weeks. Then let it become months. — Athænara ✉ 20:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, as always, for your sage advice. As another trusted person told me, I shouldn't be the oxygen for his fire.

In other thoughts, perhaps you need to add "assume they forgot their meds" to your list too? ;-)

I am done with this conversation then and am fine if you archive it (as you have one of the neatest pages here, in both senses of the word). Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Take care, Ruhrfisch 20:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome as always too. — Æ. ✉ 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Rührfisch, as you offered, could you have a look at this and perhaps offer a fresh perspective? It involves a recalcitrant editor with conflict of interest issues who tries to re-cast matters as trivialities having nothing to do with policy. — Athænara ✉ 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
After a quick look at the links and some of his contributions, it seems clear to me even without disclosing a client list that there are COI issues with this editors links to and images from the company/companies that holds the name Poweroid as a trademark. I am also somewhat surprised that a name which the editor himself admits is a trademark is allowed (even under a grandfather clause) but that seems to be a dead issue.

While he seems to make some constructive edits that are not COI (mostly on things Indian), I agree that there are definite COI issues here and have now weighed in on COI/N. Ruhrfisch 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your cogent observations and swift replacement of a coi image were very helpful. The noticeboard talk "Refusal to cooperate" section may also interest you. — Æ. ✉ 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, I will take a look at it in the next day or so. Speaking of refusal to cooperate, our old friend is back, but I am not responding. Neither, it seems, is Jimbo. Perhaps we all have better things to do. Ruhrfisch 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed we do. Silence is truly golden. — Æ. ✉ 07:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bloodless Bullfighting

I didn't know WP:COI/N existed. I've posted relevant information there. Thanks for the heads-up! fethers 14:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)  

You're welcome! — Athænara ✉ 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "I'm puzzled. After it was pointed out that the proffered "plenty of sources" is actually a paucity of sources, all discussion in this COI/N section ceased. Did all the disputing editors resolve their conflicts elsewhere? — Athænara ✉ 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)"

I just saw this comment in the history. When I have time, I'm going to run the article up the AfD flagpole. Discussion most likely stopped because user Pebs96 (talk · contribs) has a tendency to constantly attack those who question her on articles she's written. It's a major reason I stopped responding. That said, I'll be putting it up for AfD soon, I just haven't felt much like editing lately. fethers 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the subject itself is encyclopedic—the article should be edited up to NPOV par rather than deleted. I just really hate to deal with editors who so readily resort to personal attacks, and you're right, that user is one. Let me think about this. — Æ. ✉ 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that (as Tearlach just said in the AfD) the material that's there is unusable. It's entirely by User:Pebs96, and she claims complete copyright over the text, and even says that on her web page as well. I don't see a way to salvage anything she's written. fethers 01:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree and posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodless bullfighting. — Æ. ✉ 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(Just catching up here: see strikethrough above.)
When I posted my "let me think about this" reply, I had not yet read the main article closely enough to see that the roots of such an article already exist in Bullfighting#Portuguese. Encyclopedic content can appropriately be added there, with California and other variants subsidiary to the main, but certainly not in the way that Pebs went about it.
I'd sorted all this in my own mind before I posted on the Afd page but, Fethers, I apologise for seeming to contradict myself on this page. — Athænara ✉ 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Afd result: deleted 12:33, March 20 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for all of your help. Unfortunately, I had to open a topic on AN/I on Pebs96. If there's anything I've forgotten from the COI/N discussion and the AfD, please chime in. Thanks again! fethers 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And a DRV too. For another user (IDs 1, 2) who similarly specialises in incivility and personal attacks, have a look here and here. — Athænara ✉ 07:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I'm amazed that people are this...me-me-me-me-me around here. Clearly we're all members of The Cabal. I feel a little better though knowing I'm not the only one. fethers 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:AN/I protocol, I left a courtesy notification on the user's talk page. — Æ. ✉ 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, interesting, section already archived. — Æ. ✉ 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Company username and WP:EL

Could you mediate Poweroid's offer* to list websites he may have added, or offer suggestions on how this could be done to keep the list confidential? I'm thinking that it would be best to have a third party involved, rather than my doing everything directly. Thanks. --Ronz 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what bothers me about this? His good faith is being assumed, yet he's added links for his clients and raised a confidentiality issue instead of removing them. How can we continue to assume good faith if he doesn't remove them himself? — Athænara ✉ 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I just don't know what other venues to take this to. RfC or ANI maybe?
I think he want to make a list and email it, or a least I can't think of other ways for him to distribute the list while keeping it confidential. Thoughts? --Ronz 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you asked him to remove them? If he will do that, there will be no need for more elaborate processes. If he won't, then I think WP:RFC/USER would be next. — Æ. ✉ 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Puts the responsibility on his shoulders, which is where it should be. Thanks. --Ronz 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! — Æ. ✉ 03:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was a good idea, but he's taking the approach that there is no coi. I've never been a part of an RfC before. It looks like two editors must attempt to resolve the issue first. Care to give it a try? --Ronz 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've disputed his preferred take on this. As for Rfc, just a comment: I don't like process-heavy instruction-creep procedures, but of course it may be an eventuality. — Æ. ✉ 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCN Poweroid

Please see my comments at that topic. I started looking around prompted by your RFCN. I'm having a hard time believing the problem is at all as serious as presented. Is the name duplicative of a business - yes? Is it probable that the business name was the source of the name - very much could be. I didn't see where that was asked of him. But by my random shot at investigating, I just can't see imputing the motives as they appear to be presented. So far, I can't see this as 'suspicious'. If this is CoI, it is goshdarn subtle.
Unfortunately, I believe you have conflated two issues. Is there CoI? That is what I am having a lot of trouble with. Is there a name conflict? Yes. But it is a name that's been used for 2.5+ years. To bring it to RFCN under this progression of steps is really unfortunate, in my view. Shenme 07:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I sketched the facts in the RFCN as accurately (and as briefly) as I could.
The conflict of interest issues and the noticeboard discussion about them simply are what they are. The few talk page refs and diffs fill in some blanks per the reasonable expectation that Wikipedian editors attempt to reach consensus before moving farther up the administrative process line. Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames mentions neither restrictions nor allowances with respect to the length of time a username has been in use.
If there was anything in your post here which you had meant to include in your post on the RFCN, please add it there rather than generating more threads on more venues, ok? Thanks. — Athænara ✉ 09:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the username could be acceptable given the guidelines in place at the time when Poweroid registered it. Does he have a coi with the links he's been adding? Absolutely. Is there more to it? Possibly - he likes to include the links in the first edit of three successive ones, and rarely mentions that he's adding a link (from what I've seen, he used to mention the added links, but stopped doing so after they were being removed). He says he's added other links to clients of his, but he won't remove them nor make a list of them for all to examine. He's made no contention that the links are inappropriate currently. I don't know what should be done about the situation, but I'm disappointed by his lack of cooperation in fixing mistakes he readily admits to making. --Ronz 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the result shows (at this stage, at least) that the username has been grandfathered in. And so it goes (ref. Kurt Vonnegut). — Athænara ✉ 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: The user's comment—"I don't have your experience/knowledge of Wikipedia policy so perhaps that puts me at a disadvantage"—is funny in view of the fact that I've been a Wikipedian for only six months! — Æ. ✉ 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your note on Poweroid's page. I've been here a lot longer (on and off) but just the other day someone pointed out a bit of discussion etiquette that I'd seen, but didn't know was official guideline (marking discussion you later go back and re-edit, by doing <s>old text</s>). We teach each other (even if there it was because I'd irked him by changing my comment! ;-) I hope I didn't come across as a pain. Please accept my apologies if I did. Shenme 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your main points seemed to be: [1] the request for comment was misguided; [2] the conflict of interest policy concerns were imaginative; [3] the only important factor was how long the user had been editing.
The user has repeatedly slighted the policy concerns (and editors who express them) as trivial. After I posted to the user's talk page, at my own behest, and on my own behalf, because the user had misrepresented there what I said on the noticeboard, the user's response was "Thanks for replying for Ronz"—not honest, not civil and very far from assuming good faith.
By the way, the basis of the "confidentiality concerns" comment in the RFCN was this edit in which the user posted "It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly." The remainder was the offer* (see above) to which Ronz referred in the first post in this section.
It does seem that you have been trying to follow up on the policy issues themselves with the user, and I respect that. — Athænara ✉ 08:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to take any other action with this situation? I could make a good case that he was promoting bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk before he even took the user name Poweroid, as 213.235.36.175 (talk · contribs), but if no one is more concerned about his behaviour, then I guess it's not important enough to pursue further. --Ronz 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, please post the information on the noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 02:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Hi there! I have stripped the article. Can you please include it to your watch list in order to prevent unencyclopedic promotional reverts? Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can do that for awhile—keep it on yours, too, though, because articles which attract POV edits need a few more than one looking out for them. — Athænara ✉ 03:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

DONE. I have also asked Tearlach to help as per your suggestion. Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Æ. ✉ 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This user just destroyed a years worth of work by multiple editors with a single blow. Not to mention that he has been previously blocked indef by ArbCom. [1]. Do you think that's fair? --Hamsacharya dan 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hamsacharya dan, you recently filed a check user request. They haven't come up with any result yet. Please do not pre-empt their findings. With regards to your years worth of work by multiple editors drama, don't you realize that Athænara's I.Q. has been confirmed by Mensa as belonging to the top 2% of the current population? You are, in effect, undermining his/her intelligence by implying that he/she is going to buy the show that you're staging on here. It doesn't take a genius to figure-out what is your true agenda. A single mindful look at your talk page archives and edit history will reveal what you're really up to.

Note to Hamsacharya dan: This is my last reply to you within another user's talk page. If you have personal issues against me then I invite you to bring them up in our own talk pages. Avoid littering another person's talk page with your misguided conjectures. Thank you for cooperating. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not interested in arguing. It's clear what wikipedia pages I'm interested in by my contribution history. After a series of disputes in 2006 i took a long wikibreak and came back in 2007. Since I've returned, all of my contributions have been encyclopedic, and I've been nothing if not absolutely peaceful and amenable to differences of opinion and dispute resolution. Sfacets and Priyanath can readily attest to this fact. Compare that with this person that you are siding with - if you're such a genius, then you will easily be able to tell that he's the sockpuppet in question. It doesn't take RFCU to figure that out. --Hamsacharya dan 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. You recently removed some promotional links to the subjects page. Thanks. I just posted a new section on the talk page clarifying some information on the subject. I'm not sure how to proceed, given the problems outlined. If you would be so kind as to comment and or edit, I would appreciate it. -Vritti 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon! Can you please take the honor of serving Hamsacharya dan's 3RR block? It has been sitting at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR for an entire day now. He is just joking around our warnings (he did a full revert again right after you warned him) and even deleted mine twice. Please. - Sentinel 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It was being ignored because you placed it incorrectly at the top of the page instead of at the bottom in chronological order. I moved it—you should find it here. — Athænara ✉ 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the 3RR report you indicate that Hamsacharya dan "...repeatedly removed the Afd notice from the article." I only see the once and I will warn him for that. Could you please show where other than here he removed the AfD notice. THe thing is that once could have been an error (as he said here but more than once is not. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that you already did warn him. Good enough. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the count—I posted accordingly. — Æ. ✉ 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

→ (Article subsequently deleted.)

Guru issues

Hello Athaenara. Any wisdom on how to handle guru issues? I don't think we can ban adherents from editing articles. If so then Martin Luther could not be edited by either Catholics or Protestants. Yet it seems that there are real editing problems on some of those articles. (I note that Arbcom has had to deal with some of them). Should we just flush those out as not really COIs? That seems harsh, but what else can we do under our mandate? What brought this up was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I sense that the COI noticeboard will be more respected long-term if it sticks to its apparent mandate. The only fallback I can see is to try to ban actual employees of a religious institution from editing articles about their group, but that's harsh as well. EdJohnston 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of brochures. The neutral point of view trumps everything.
Before and after versions of another guru article illustrate very real COI issues which also show up on BLP/N. Ban employees? Sometimes we have to, but beware the Wonkish side.
I think whatever encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral (posted by Axlq to Wikipedia talk:Third opinion) is good. — Athænara ✉ 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello Athænara, you may or may not remember me from several of the Barbara Schwarz issues brought up on various noticeboards. Here you pointed out how certain editors were taking up a lot of unnecessary time and effort with constant notices.

Does Justanother appear to be engaging in similar behavior to you? The reason I ask is that he brought up an issue here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Weird one - User:Anynobody holding my words up to ridicule without attribution or context and rejected the suggestion for a WP:RFC. If you look, I know he has at least one other incident currently open on the same board and many in the archives. I've been trying to get him to do an RfC for about a month to resolve this, and he has gone to some startling lengths to avoid it. Thanks for your time, Anynobody 09:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That single purpose account specialises in disrupting Wikipedia with misuse of process. You are one of those who have rewarded it by rising to nearly every gibe the user tossed in your direction. Can you stop? — Athænara ✉ 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I'd be happy to but I've actually been trying to get him into a RfC or have some other community feedback situation. I really don't mind his attempts at me but it looks like he is really bothering other editors and ignoring many Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Please don't take this as a an angry question, but what should I do if not try to get community action? Thanks, Anynobody 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the apology on my user page. It is directed at editors like you. Even editors like you that may have responded in an uncharacteristic manner and found themselves more than bystanders to the fracas. (AGF is more than a motto to me, it is a way of life. But there is an end to AGF, too. Not you, but others here.) You know, Athaenara, you are wrong about me. Best regards --Justanother 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Shyeah, roit. — Æ. ✉ 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand

*( "To Jokerst44: Please do not misrepresent editors' adherence to policies and guidelines as harrassment…" )

You made comments about me misrepresenting policies. Can you clarify what you mean by this. I am not taking issue with what you wrote, I just need clarification as to what you are referencing. Thanks. Jokerst44 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I believe you are referring to the MOCHIP article. With all due respect, I want to put that behind me. We have all worked out the issue as you can see if you read the talk space. I understand you putting in your 2 cents, but in all honesty, I would rather just let it go and not dwell on it after the fact. Thanks. Jokerst44 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site.
The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara/Archive_4.