User talk:Atama

Welcome to my talk page, please feel free to leave me a message.

RfC User name

Since you commented on my general description of this user name, you might be interested in looking at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#User_Name:_ThisLaughingGuyRightHere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're my mentor and this isn't good. Please advise.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

...and to show how much your help is needed, it has been recommended that FVK self-impose a "do not edit" while some things are clarified with you ... see my sane proposal on the EW noticeboard. I know we have no time limits, but your help is highly appreciated! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I had drafted up a closure for WP:AN3#User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:Mtking (Result: ). Since I noticed your recent comment I though I would hold off and get your comments first:

*Result: Blocked one month. It is clear that Fountainviewkid edit warred on this article, and the discussion here is about what block or agreement might be sufficient to keep the problem from recurring. Generally cases at 3RR are closed by a single admin. FVK has been here since 2008. His edits are a long-running problem so all the newbie excuses should be exhausted by now. Mentorship has not worked. Given the continued disruption at Southern Adventist University we should have a long block or an ironclad deal. If a review of the block length is desired, I suggest that editors open a thread at ANI. Another option is that those who feel that an agreement might be reached should pursue that on the editor's talk page. FVK has not given any clear agreement to a voluntary restriction. A site wide 1RR plus abstaining from Seventh Day Adventist articles for six months could be enough reason to lift the block.

We don't usually leave 3RR cases hanging for a long time; some decision should be made. Thanks for any feedback on this plan. — EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... You know I'm FVK's mentor, and if he gets blocked for edit-warring, that reflects poorly on me, because I've been trying to help him not engage in this kind of behavior. And of course I can't really help a person who is blocked, so it frustrates my efforts in that regard. Not to mention that when the last block occurred, FVK intended to leave Wikipedia for good although he was convinced not to, and I'm afraid that another block (especially of that length) will drive him away indefinitely. So any comment I make about the topic will be biased, and I would definitely prefer that he not be blocked.

But as I just discovered and disclosed on the 3RR page, he did violate 3RR, so I can't justifiably protest any sanction against him at this point. 3RR is a bright line, and a month block is a proper escalation based on his block history. I feel awful that all of this happened. -- Atama頭 16:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have agreed to the suggested sanctions that BWilkins and Kuru both posted. They involve either 1RR or 0RR. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean you will follow a 0RR on all articles related to Seventh Day Adventism for six months? This means you will be unable to make any edit which is judged under the WP:3RR policy as being a revert. You should also agree to a 1RR on all other articles on Wikipedia for the same period of time. These restrictions would be entered at WP:RESTRICT. If you will agree to this plan, I believe that a block can be avoided. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to the suggestions posed, though I personally don't prefer the idea of the time period of 6 months. For me that would be a permanent defacto revert ban, which while I could see why some would argue for it, I don't think would be as productive. I would much rather like the idea of a "scaled" restriction where the limits decrease as the time passes. I think that would give me a chance to learn while still having the freedom to try and engage productively.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You can always try for a few months, and if no incidents occur, make a plea at WP:AN asking if the community feels that it's safe to loosen restrictions. There's no guarantee that they will, but who knows. The community even forgives people who were totally site-banned from time to time if the person can demonstrate that they are no longer causing problems. I would definitely recommend waiting a few months before trying anything like that, however. -- Atama頭 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a a little confused about the proposed sanction. It seems that it's saying that I would not even be allowed to edit the SAU page for 6 months, which would include even adding sources or citations. That's my number one page which would defacto give me the same level as an IP. I'm willing to do 0RR, but I still want to be able to add sources on the SAU talk page (just without making any reverts). Your thoughts?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also 0RR is problematic for it would prevent me from doing actions like this. You may or may not know but I actually watch certain pages specifically for vandalism. I can show you a history of where I have helped on certain articles with this type of issue. That is why I would be fine with 0RR on SAU's page (it's semi-protected) but would still like 1RR access to combat vandals on other pages. I understand the point of the sanctions, but I don't want them to hamper me in doing what I have always done right. Hopefully this makes sense?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism reverts are pretty much always accepted no matter what. An edit like that, though, where the vandalism is questionable, might be best avoided. Look at WP:3RRNO for examples of exceptions to 3RR and should be exceptions to 0RR as well. But be careful about such things, note how in the policy it says "obviously" in bold text, so if you have even the slightest doubt that it is clear vandalism, don't risk it. Another example is if BelloWello's IP or sock makes an edit somewhere, technically you can revert such things since he is banned, but if you do so before someone else identifies him you'll also be taking a risk. You might, for example, be blocked unless someone else can vouch for you and point out that an IP or account belongs to a banned editor.

And just to clarify, 0RR doesn't mean zero edits, it means you can't make any edits that might be seen as reverts. Which will be hard, I know, you've already run into a problem now where you made edits that you didn't realize were reverts. The only advice I can offer is this... If you think there's a reasonable chance that someone might object to an edit you're about to make, bring it up on the article talk page first. And if you think that there's a chance that an edit might in some way be considered a revert, don't do it. If someone adds some text which is only halfway-accurate, and you fix the text and add a source to explain the correction, that's a borderline case that may or may not be considered a revert. It would be better to made an edit request on the article talk page, or leave a note with the person who added the text. It may seem like you have to walk on eggshells with these restrictions, and that's because you do. But it's the best way to win back the community's trust. -- Atama頭 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm you still didn't clarify this line for me " User:Fountainviewkid is also hereby restricted to talkpage discussion only on the Southern Adventist University article for a period of 6 months"....does that mean I'm banned from editing the SAU article for 6 months? Even to add sources or make minor (non-revert) adjustments? I'm willing to do 0RR, but I'd like to still be able to edit, just not revert. I think the 0RR on SAU with the 1RR on everything else was to me probably the fairest, most realistic, and best option. But what is your feedback? I'm still debating my options. I supposed I could try it and if I don't like it and it gets too restrictive I could always have the option of leaving Wiki. Thankfully no one can place any restrictions on that! Your thoughts?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to what was proposed on my talk page and your talk page. I didn't even see what was on the 3RR noticeboard. It looks like that proposal also adds an additional talk page ban for the SAU article, so you're right about that. -- Atama頭 20:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts/suggestions? Can it be modified slightly?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You can ask there if you think the 0RR restriction would be enough at that page as well, EdJohnston suggested above that it might be. I will admit, though, that it would be safer if you avoided editing that article completely since you've run into trouble there so often, so maybe it would be in your best interest to agree to it. It depends on what you're willing to accept. -- Atama頭 20:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero edits are permitted to the article - limited to talkpage only. It appears to be non-negotiable from the discussion at AN/3RR. Dude, I'm fricking going to the mat for you here, c'mon. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That restriction will still leave all other Adventist-related articles open to you, with a 0RR restriction, and 1RR to all other articles. Which again might be to your benefit. If you stick to the restrictions, you can't be accused of edit-warring. It might rankle to be constrained in that way, but it will still leave you many opportunities to participate in the areas with the most interest for you. Also, people who try to bait others into violating their restrictions are poorly received, which means that this could also serve as a kind of protection for you in some areas. -- Atama頭 21:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atama. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Message added 20:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 20:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Arb

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the notice. -- Atama頭 23:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capildeo_family

--Restorationoffact (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Restorationoffact--Restorationoffact (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC) This page you have deleted through error should be restored as was with Capildeo Family Tree from Pundit Capildeo and subsequent Capildeo family members. It contained verifiable information regarding the family tree of the Capildeo family of Trinidad and Tobago. More than that it was an important historical account for Trinidad and Tobago, and gave a snapshot of one family- A generational account: from immigration from East India though to modern day. I must say I am shocked that you didn't check certain references in the article before deleteing it. For example the original article mentioned Pundit Capildeo: It contained his faimly tree from his arrival to Trinidad and Tobago, his children,their marriages,and deaths,his grandchildren,and their marriages and deaths. What's more puzzling is it mentioned his legacy- an account of famous sons of the "Lion House" (Pundit Caplideo's ancestral home in Chaguanas, Trinidad and Tobago). The original article listed many Capildeo family members who have their own Wikipedia Pages: Rudranath Capildeo VS Naipaul What's more is the Lion House is such an important account of one family from East India to their arrival and establisment in Trinidad and Tobago is that the house is actually now part of the National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago and the Heritage Foundation I would hope that by reading the references I have provided which are accessible easily on the internet- that you will see the error of deleting the Wikipedia Page and restore it with original contents intact and as was, and leave it there for people to expand further and cite all the credible references to the Capildeo family (there are endless verifable resources available), therby contributing to the preservation of information regarding not only the Caplildeo family, but to honour Trinidadian people of East Indian descent with an invaluable and well preserved generational account of immigration from India in the late 1800's-early life in 1900's Trinidad- through to modern day- which is best illustrated by the previously deleted Capildeo family tree. --Restorationoffact (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Restorationoffact--Restorationoffact (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted through proposed deletion. Nobody objected to its deletion, including yourself, so the deletion wasn't an "error". However, if you want it restored, I'll do so. Proposed deletions can be restored at any time by request. -- Atama頭 02:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Move request

Hello, I would like your help in the following since I am not to use my tools. Please move the page of Mary Hardy to something like "Mary Hardy (radio presenter)", because I would like to create a "Mary Hardy" disambiguation page which would include a redirected mentioned of María Cordero Hardy, a Puerto Rican scientist who is also known as Mary Hardy. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I can do that, but is there a reason you can't move it yourself? I'm not saying WP:SOFIXIT, I'm wondering why you'd need administrator tools. Any editor can move a page as long as it isn't move-protected or they don't need to delete a page to make room for the one being moved. (I do appreciate you asking me when you suspect that you might need to use the tools, however.) -- Atama頭 16:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is because in the past some of my actions, which were made in good faith, have been misunderstood and have gotten me in "hot-water" that I prefer to consult you. It is better to be safe then sorry. Let me know if you make the move or rather that I do it. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• You can always ask at WP:RM also, but what the heck, I'll do it. I've moved it to Mary Hardy (comedian). -- Atama頭 21:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Quoting you.

I'm quoting you, and I think it's probably good practice to tell you in case I've screwed it up. [1] Failedwizard (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice, and you got my meaning correct. -- Atama頭 17:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal information

Hi Atama. I saw this comment [2] and felt it was close to being an attempt to out and at the least harassment based on speculation of a person's work place, so removed it and let the one editor named in the comment know about it [3]. I have been involved with User:Jmh649 with similar discussions so am not neutral here. If the content should be moved back into the thread I 'd be happy to do it, or alternately to maintain the revert. If you have a chance would you mind taking a look. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Unless Doc can show the information that exists on Wikipedia that demonstrates TimidGuy's connection, then any connections made will be a violation of WP:OUTING. But the information need not be clear-cut, for example, if TimidGuy mentions who he is on Wikipedia on another page, that's not outing, he effectively did it himself. Or if TimidGuy mentioned his real life name, and a person with that name is shown on another web site to be affiliated with some organization, that's not outing either. Generally, if a person chooses to connect his real identity and his Wikipedia identity in a readily-available location, they are waiving their right to privacy. But if they haven't waived that right, we have a responsibility to honor that and not take that away from them. It's basically Doc's burden to show how TimidGuy revealed that information, otherwise your removal of the info was appropriate. -- Atama頭 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll leave it as is then, and think about what needs to be done further. It may be up to those who are mentioned to take it from here.(olive (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

I just saw that I had aslo contacted the second person mentioned. I hadn't remembered doing that. D'oh. Anyway just for the record.(olive (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

I should add that this concerns matters which are being discussed off-Wiki with the ArbCom, Jimmy Wales, and TimidGuy.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Off Wikipedia discussion does not give anyone permission to out another editor on Wikipedia. I hope that's not what you are suggesting. And are these off Wiki conversations confidential? If so perhaps they should not be mentioned on Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Sometimes the only ethical and practical way to deal with such matters is do it off Wikipedia. We do that routinely, sending sensitive information to ArbCom, or discussing things with Oversighters or OTRS (or Jimbo). There are also private mailing lists (I used to be on the MEDCOM mailing list when I was an active member). Such things are done privately specifically in order to prevent outing. When those matters can have relevance to an arbitration case (either open or closed) it's particularly appropriate to let ArbCom know about such things. -- Atama頭 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree.(olive (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Yes and of course both Littleolive and TimidGuy have stated on their user pages at one point in time that they teach at the Maharishi University of Management. These statements can be found on the COI noticeboard from 4-5 years ago. Thus if Littleolive could please return my comments.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

James, your MEDRS comment is not about me and it goes beyond TG's place of employment. It also includes another editor. I also asked to have information removed from my talk page because of off line harassment so I find your comments here about me, and about your MEDRS comment to be both objectionable and lacking in truthfulness . You also used the MEDRS comment in a discussion to sway an argument which is harassment, and you have used arguments which harass before on NB. Patterns of harassment are not acceptable on Wikipedia.

@Atama: I apologize for dragging this kind of discussion here. My intent was ask for a neutral opinion from a respected admin, and I tried to do that on as neutral a manner as possible so as to not offend anyone. I'm not sure what the next step should be but frankly I'm losing patience with comments and actions which are meant to harm other editors. (olive (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

It's okay, it's not the first time I've been involved with this area of dispute (which is why I know so many of you already) so it doesn't bother me to have something discussed here. Unfortunately, our policy is somewhat ambiguous in this regard. WP:OUTING states, "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." That clause derives from this principle which was introduced by the Arbitration Committee in the second Macedonia arbitration case. Essentially, Doc is not violating policy by mentioning something that TimidGuy or yourself have volunteered in the past, even if you now wish the community to forget that either of you had disclosed it. The ambiguity is where it states that when a person redacts the information, "their wishes should be respected."

My own personal opinion is that the best way to resolve the ambiguity would be to look elsewhere in the policy, where it states that using self-disclosed information for "opposition research" or to constantly challenge a person's contributions is harassment. However, it also states that using that information "for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums" is allowed.

So, in conclusion, my non-binding, freely-given, take-it-as-you-will opinion is that Doc isn't sworn to a vow of amnesia to pretend he never saw that information, or to never bring it up. On the other hand, bringing it up solely as an attempt to undermine another editor's credibility in a dispute should not be allowed. This edit is close enough to the latter that I would say that it wasn't an appropriate place to bring up the COI. I wouldn't go so far as to call it harassment, but I don't think bringing up TimidGuy's connection to the MUM was relevant to the discussion, and therefore should have been avoided.

Basically, Doc, it wasn't necessary to point out the possibility that the hypothetical medical reference librarian that TimidGuy mentioned might be at the MUM and is therefore unreliable. It would probably be enough to just say that a Wikipedia guideline shouldn't be determined by anecdotal second-hand evidence, or to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of TimidGuy's arguments, rather than any personal bias he might have toward the subject. I don't see any advantage in bringing up a potential COI, either what TimidGuy is suggesting is correct or it isn't. That's just some advice from me, it's not meant to be an interpretation of any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, just my personal suggestion as to how I would handle the situation. -- Atama頭 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Since this thread is still ongoing I'll add another comment. Atama, I emailed you last month asking for advice on how to handle this issue but you did not respond. It turns out that TimidGuy has a much greater conflict of interest than he had previously disclosed. He had been asked long ago if he had a conflict of this type and gave a deceptive answer, and he failed to disclose this significant COI in any of the numerous occasions when his involvement in the topic was discussed. The matter has been discussed off-Wiki, and I believe that it is settled and that TimidGuy will not be editing the topic again. If that is not the case and he presses the matter then a public case will need to be made, one in which his actual role will have to be discussed. I'm hoping that that isn't necessary and that we can move forward following best practices. Unless we hear from TG on this matter, I think we should just drop it.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember that email, I replied on August 30 (I still have a copy of the reply, I can forward it if you want but it's a moot point now). You didn't reveal to me the name of the editor in question, but after this discussion I had guessed it was probably TimidGuy. My advice to you at the time was that revealing the info on Wikipedia would be outing and that you'd basically have to sit on the knowledge for the moment. However, what I now realize that I should have suggested that you forward it to ArbCom. I forgot that there was an arbitration case about the topic in the past, and that's exactly the kind of info that should be sent on to them. It sounds like you took that route on your own, so you were wiser than me in the matter. :) -- Atama頭 21:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there's your reply in the spam folder. Maybe Google is interpreting "COI" as a spam term. Thanks for the good advice, which I took in advance. ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Will sees fit to hint at information that apparently was not public, on a public talk page. But that has been the standard. There are second class citizens on Wikipedia and there are those who make sure they are treated as second class citizens, indeed who create and nurture the narrative at every turn that they are second class citizens. This is sad and unfortunate for Wikipedia. And personally I find it despicable. (olive (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

Thanks Atama you have been fair, measured, honest, and sensible.(olive (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

I haven't "hinted" at anything. TimidGuy has repeatedly commented on his position at MUM. Some folks here seem more interested in inflaming this matter than resolving it. I don't think that this thread is helpful.   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Will that is a disingenuous comment. My question to Atama was neutral, and did not attack or personalize anyone. Both you and Doc once again provided the same red herrings you have many times in the past, unhinging a straightforward discussion and comment. If you a operate this way, you and Doc both can expect editors to take the steps necessary to clarify the situation and to protect themselves And you most certainly hinted at off Wiki discussions which you said will impact an editor. Given they are off Wiki and are therefore not meant for the community at large , they should not have been mentioned on a talk page. This is indiscreet. (olive (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

Olive, I haven't hinted at off-Wiki discussions - I mentioned them directly. Off-Wiki discussions are often relevant to on-Wiki issues, and that's certainly the case here. I don't think there are any red herrings involved, though I personally feel there has been intentional deception and evasion, which disappoints me as I expected better. However, as I wrote before, that particular issue is settled unless TG wants to make a public case.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless the off WP issue is about Doc James' attempted outing which is what this thread is about then that discussion/information is not pertinent here. Further, if a discussion has been carried out off Wikipedia presumably because the information is sensitive, is it your place to divulge information on Wikipedia? If you have information that is public then I'd suggest this is not the place to post it. (olive (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

I was under the impression this thread concerned TG. If anyone has a COI so significant even indirect references to it generate complaints then those references probably aren't the biggest problem. In any case, I don't think Atama's talk page is the place to discuss this. I'd be happy to talk with you about it in more detail off-Wiki if you send me a note.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The propensity both you and Doc have to reframe discussions in the direction of COI, and over several years, through COIN complaints which didn't amount to anything, an arbitration where COI wasn't shown and in my case from the very first interaction I had with you, is truly remarkable. If I'm not comfortable having information that is sensitive, posted on this page, I can say with certainty I am not comfortable discussing it with you off Wikipedia. Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll wait for the movie.:o)(olive (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

I'm not sure how any of your comments here further the resolution of this problem. If you'd like to discuss it privately, I'm open to that. But just complaining isn't a discussion. It should be no surprise that my first encounter with you on the TM pages was about COI, since I've said several time that it was the unresolved COI issues which got me involved with the topic to begin with. Because some editors have hidden their true COI, previous efforts at dispute resolution proceeded without all of the facts. You apparently knew the facts but joined in hiding them. That's unhelpful, as is your seeming habit of running interference anytime the subject comes up. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My fist discussion with you was about an artist who you alleged was a meditator, he isn't, and that my effort to clean up the lead of his article towards a more NPOV, showed a TM COI, a patent absurdity. Your statement is laced with suggestive content and half truths which if I don't rebut will oddly show up in arbitration enforcements or on Talk pages or NB where the well is poisoned yet again and again as as been the past. For example where the admins in attendance, the same two, Future Perfect and Cirt, show up and in one case and even with out evidence or giving me a chance to comment sanctioned me and closed the case. As long as you persist in reframing and mischaracterizing, and that content shows up in your evidence, I will rebut. I'm not complaining Will, I'm documenting wrong. But you're right this discussion shouldn't be on this page. (olive (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

Since this thread is ongoing, I'll add my comment. The topic of this thread is Duc James' misbehavior in regarding to WP:Outing. As Atama has stated previously "Unless Doc can show the information that exists on Wikipedia that demonstrates TimidGuy's connection, then any connections made will be a violation of WP:OUTING." So far, to my knowledge, James has failed to provide any diffs that support his attempted outing statements. Secondly James has used COI accusations on a number of recent occasions to poison the well and gain the upper hand in content disputes. [4][5][6][7] These are clear violations of WP:COI which states "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute." The fact that James continued this misbehavior, even after ArbCom corrected his mis-interpretation of the WP:COI policy on August 26, with yet another COI accusation during a content dispute and the attempted outing currently under discussion, is disruptive and disturbing. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this thread is helping us move towards any resolution, and we've abused Atama's hospitality. I won't comment here further: anyone else is welcome to the last word(s).   Will Beback  talk  07:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this RFAR was opened in error, but I appreciate you following the procedure and notifying me anyway. :) -- Atama頭 23:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

COI/disruption incident on Luke Ravenstahl

Hello. Regarding this COI noticeboard report you responded to, the problematic user Username7891 (talk · contribs) has resumed editing. To date, the user has never participated in any form of discussion with any of the editors who have attempted to share concerns with him or her. —Bill Price (nyb) 16:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did say that if the editor started up again, I'd block indefinitely, and I've done so. The editor was actually blocked a week ago, for 24 hours, for the same behavior. The most recent edit is the first one done after they were unblocked. The normal escalation following a 24 hour block in most cases is 48 hours, however, the editor has no history of positive contributions, and considering how sporadically they edit (generally taking a week's break after a short editing activity) I doubt that a short block would even be noticed, let alone have any positive effect on their behavior. -- Atama頭 16:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How to define Outing in cases where there are indications of a COI

Hey. I happened to see your comments at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Brookstreet Hotel. Do you think it would be useful to prepare an essay giving an opinion on when suggestions that an editor may have a COI would not be considered Outing? In the past I felt this was one of those things on which agreement would never be found, so it was better not to start. But your ideas in that thread sound like common sense to me. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be, it might help with COIN at least. I wrote one other essay that people seem to have accepted (after it went through 2 MfDs and I compromised on the content) so I can give another essay a try. Or you can start it and I can help, whatever you want. I'd have to give some thought as to how to approach it. Maybe, "Wikipedia:To out or not to out". Hmm, that gives the TOONTOO acronym, that's kind of catchy. :) -- Atama頭 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot looks like a worthwhile effort. I'll have to reflect on where to go with this. I realize that there is a current practice at WP:COIN (on avoiding outing) that seems reasonably well-accepted among the regulars, but it may not be written down. Since I've not been at COIN much lately, perhaps I should read some recent discussions to see if that is still true. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you edit COIN, there's a big notice at the top of the editing page, in red, that says, "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." It's a very touchy subject there because the temptation to out people in order to pursue a COI complaint is common. It's so touchy that there was an MfD requesting that the board be deleted because it was just a place to out people. The discussion was a snow keep, but even so, it shows how concerned people are about the topic. -- Atama頭 22:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's generally taken as a given that Outing concerns take precedence over COI, but the comment of yours that I noticed in the Brookstreet Hotel thread was the first place I saw someone trying to spell out how to navigate around the permitted boundary. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

RD

Hi. Could you move the discussion to archive? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It will archive itself soon, I'd rather not get in the robot's way. But I've collapsed the section if that helps. -- Atama頭 16:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky

You seemed to favor a topic ban for Deepdish7 and Kolokol1 in the WP:COIN discussion, but you have not yet made any comment in the related thread which was opened at ANI: Wikipedia:Ani#Article or topic ban for two users. I would be curious to know your view, whichever side you come down on. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff to wade through, a lot more than what was at COIN, especially with Deepdish7's disruption which is more extensive than I realized. I'll have to reconsider my topic ban suggestion I made at COIN in regards to Kolokol1. -- Atama頭 19:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Got a sec...?

Hi Atama,

Both a thank you for your explanations on the rules of OUTING, and a request for wisdom. So I'm trying to move to a world where I can be some help on the COI board, and my case study so far is Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Brookstreet_Hotel, thank you so much for your help so far. We've had a response from the user today that I'm not sure how to handle is (the edit in question is: [[8]]) on the face of it I'm not sure how to deal with the accusation of harassment, and in second place I'm not sure what happens with the sentence of mine that was removed on the same edit - On one hand I'm fully supportive of someone wanting to remove their twitter details from the post (and If you want to do the proper admin blanking that would be fine by me also), but I'm unsure what to do about the removal of the Protecode point and the changing of the meaning of the sentance I wrote. What would you do? Failedwizard (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I responded to him already. Basically he can't accuse you of outing, our policy is pretty explicit on this. If the editor wants to edit with privacy he can give it a try with WP:CLEANSTART, however as that policy states:

• Editors who make a clean start and then resume editing in the same topic areas may be recognized by other editors in that area. If the previous and clean start accounts are not linked, this can result in direct questioning and/or sockpuppet investigation requests, and the linkage between the two accounts may become public knowledge. Clean start accounts should not return to the same topic areas or editing patterns if there is a strong desire to separate from the initial account.

So it may not work anyway. In any case, his removal of your text is in violation of WP:TPO in my opinion. I suggest you put your statement back as it was, he is in the wrong, especially if he is changing the meaning of what you wrote. -- Atama頭 03:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Failedwizard (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard case involving Jespah

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban of Jespah". Thank you. OlYeller^Talktome 17:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Miss Teenage California

Atama - this article was tagged G4 due to a previous AFD closed as delete. However, the most recent AFD closed by me on 19 Sept was no consensus. The decision should have gone to WP:DRV and not WP:CSD. Personally, I dont really care, but I would like to make sure you made an informed decision. The issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Miss Teenage California.--v/r - TP 21:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented. -- Atama頭 22:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rutabaga

Hi, Atama. It seems Gandydancer missed my reply earlier in September. He has noticed it now and we still have an active disagreement. I'd appreciate you taking a look. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 16:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave some comments. -- Atama頭 16:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if Gandydancer is distracted by other discussions and endeavors at the moment and has dropped our Rutabaga discussion, even though we were making progress. I'm still irked by the fact that his version that I object to is still present on the article. As part of the WP:BRD cycle, it would seem that the bit under discussion would be removed until consensus is reached. Essentially, I endorse the edited-down version, which isn't that different from Gandydancer's version and was the result of my attempt to compromise somewhere between the current article and the version after our WP:3O in 2009. If the current article is agreeable to Gandydancer, what's his incentive to continue the discussion and argue for inclusion of his material? Could we revert to the earlier edited-down version of that section and then try to engage him again? Rkitko ^(talk) 17:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You mention BRD, which is quite relevant. The second part of BRD is the revert, which will only happen if Gandydancer is still involved at the page.

My suggestion is this. Be as courteous as possible. Leave a note directly on Gandydancer's user talk page, stating what you intend to do, and that if Gandydancer objects, that you won't go through with it. Watchlist the user talk page (if you haven't already) and wait 24 hours (I use 24 hours as a rule-of-thumb to wait for a response because I never know what a person's current time zone is at any given time). If there's no response, then make the changes. Post a follow-up to your initial message stating that the changes were made. I don't think anyone could fault you for that. If Gandydancer has truly moved on, then there will be no objections, and there is no problem. If Gandydancer objects, then the discussion will resume. So you can't lose either way. -- Atama頭 23:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Recall: TParis - Overlooked sub-page during deletion

Recently an article on Swami Budhpuri Ji had some copyright violation and as mentioned here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyvio/sandbox, a new article was rewritten as a temporary page here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp but User:Tparis overlooked that and deleted the page without any review or reason. The issue was posted on his talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TParis but it hasn't been resolved. Please recall User:Tparis 117.205.60.151 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

TParis was completely correct. The article was deleted via a deletion discussion, therefore the article, its talk page, and any subpages are to be deleted. If you disagree that the AfD should have been closed as it was, you can bring it up at WP:DRV and state why you disagree with the closure of the discussion. -- Atama頭 06:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

User:Iadrian yu is a new meta/sock puppet of banned User:Iaaasi

User:Iadrian yu is a new meta/sock puppet of User:Iaasi. He was banned many times by anti-semite and chauvinist edits in English Wikipedia. Notice: Iaaasi uses more Internet Providers from Romania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornicus (talk • contribs) 10:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would ask you if you could provide some evidence of this accusation. But... I see that you are blocked as a sockpuppet yourself, and you were reported by Iadrian yu. So I'm not going to bother. -- Atama頭 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sock of BANNED user?

• Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hey Atama, just thought I bring this user Flyingalbatross (talk · contribs) up to you since his other sock Taurgo (talk · contribs) is croaking right now. TBH, I could be wrong but from the looks of it, it does seem likely that they are the same person, and a simple CU won't lie to us. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat
• Prelim result just in, User:Flyingalbatross and User:Growingnuerons are confirmed as the sock of "Chanakyathegreat", while User:Taurgo has created two other sock accounts (U.ravishankar (talk · contribs) and Skonduri (talk · contribs)) but is otherwise not related to "Chanakyathegreat". However, going by WP:DUCK evidences of Taurgo's area of interest with "Chanakyathegreat", I'm not ready to AGF this (per WP:MEATPUPPET, CMIW). --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I got an email from Taurgo on the 5th denying a connection but with CU evidence showing sleeper socks any good faith I'd extend to Taurgo is exhausted. Thanks for letting me know about this stuff. -- Atama頭 22:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ebrahimi-amir

This user is still engaged in WP:Disruption and edit-warring all over the place. Keep in mind that this user has been blocked indefinitely for similar behavior, before you unblocked him under the sole condition that he'd behave.[9] You told him that if similar behavior occurs, he will be blocked again. Just look at his editing history, it's blind revert after blind revert, some without even an edit-summary. For example just look at this revert [10], he is is removing sourced content, replacing it with WP:OR. This is borderline vandalism. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I looked at that revert, and unless I'm confused he's doing the opposite of what you claim. He's removing information that has "citation needed tags" and no references, and even adding a reference. He did remove an external link to the BBC but that hardly counts as vandalism. -- Atama頭 00:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For guiding me and countless other users, through very considerate, patient and knowledgeable comments, and in impossible looking situations. Before I met you, I never imagined that an evening on the net could be so invigorating. Being in the same thread as you was an honor. If I know what is good for me, I shall learn from the experience, and it shall remain with me forever. MW ℳ 10:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever done anything to deserve that level of praise but thank you anyway. -- Atama頭 17:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey Atama, I know I'm close to this, so looking for a second opinion. Nothing actionable here, right? Thanks!!!– Lionel ^(talk) 10:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Binksternet's actions? I don't think so. I can't imagine what would cause someone to turn from supporting a project to nominating it for deletion. But speculation about a person's motives isn't something that we generally do without a good reason, generally it's their actions that deserve response, and while the nomination of the project was certainly unusual (something Binksternet admitted to) the discussion proceeded like any other MfD. It was a clear "keep" consensus but I don't see that the nomination itself was in any was disruptive.

If there is some other concern that I'm totally missing, I apologize, please point it out to me (it's still a bit early for me and my caffeine hasn't quite kicked in yet). -- Atama頭 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Need help with another users harassment

Atama, Thank you for helping! I started the name change as you suggested. The user Atlan is still harassing me even now on the incident abuse page for the Attempted outing and Azeztulite article. I am not the Ebay account holder, and never stated I was, but Atlan continues his rant about it. Please help. I am walking away but this should not be allowed to continue. Thank you! Maxnxs 17:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I just read your message over at Maxnxs' talk page. I'm sorry but what kind of half-assed reply to the above message is that? Where is the part where you say "Atlan did not harass or out you"? It may not have been your intention, but reading it makes it seem as though their complaints were legitimate, i.e. that I was indeed harassing or outing them. You basically give them a pat on the back at my expense, as they are now still, if not more so, convinced I am harassing them. I find it an entirely unsatisfactory resolution that I'm still the bad guy here.--Atlan (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If I was convinced you were harassing Maxnxs at this point, you'd know, because I would have come to you about it. I made it clear at ANI that you weren't harassing before. However, if you do insist on connecting Maxnxs to the old account against their wishes after the name change, then you are the bad guy. Our policy is clear on that. -- Atama頭 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Maxnxs hasn't edited in the past couple of days, what makes you think "they are now still, if not more so, convinced [you are] harassing them"? All you have to do is avoid mentioning their old username and you're fine. If they complain about the fact that you were harassing them in the past, you can point out that at least one admin (me) declared there was no basis in the complaint. Notice that I also did not acknowledge their complaint above about you. That comment left above was actually done before the username change was finished, despite what the signature currently says. -- Atama頭 23:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that they are still convinced that I was harassing them because the above complaint came well after your ANI reply. What you said at ANI obviously didn't get through to them and I continued to be blamed for harassment. I happen to find that a rather serious allegation to throw around, but apparently it was more important to coddle a somewhat disruptive SPA than to set this straight. Even better, I get a lecture on when I would be the bad guy. Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Maxnxs said, "I am walking away but this should not be allowed to continue." So if you don't bring it up again there's no problem. Do you plan to? And if I can't get through to someone before, what makes you think that repeating myself is going to help? Honestly, at this point the only person who seems to be trying to keep this dispute going is you. Let it go. -- Atama頭 00:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was merely stating my opinion on how you've handled this, which I think was very helpful to Maxnxs, but rather lacking of any consideration to me. I don't request or expect any additional action from you. If I wanted to keep this dispute going, I could've posted this over at Maxnxs' talk page. This only came about when I was prodded on my talk page and then dragged to ANI by them. I have never taken the initiative so this whole "harassment" issue would cease when they stop contacting me about it. I have said as much at ANI, which you apparently didn't read. The only reason I'm still bringing this up here, is because you replied to them only hours ago. I hardly could've brought this up any sooner.--Atlan (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never resolved a dispute by chastising the main complainant after they've declared that they are walking away from the dispute. Especially if I'm only repeating myself in doing so. I'm sorry if you're upset that I didn't stick up for you, but I thought it would be in everyone's best interests to just let the dispute go away. My reply to Maxnxs was only meant to give advice on how to deal with the name change from this point on. I never meant to endorse Maxnxs's complaints either explicitly or implicitly, and my reply certainly wasn't meant as a criticism toward you. -- Atama頭 01:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved Questions re Adminhelp

Hi Atama, I wanted to thank you for getting involved in the debacle that I inadvertently started with my ANI filing. The filing has now been archived due to being inactive for 24 hours, which concerns me a bit as my original question was never actually resolved...I made a couple of suggestions, but nobody replied. There may have been other aspects of the conversation that also merited further discussion. I'm reluctant to just renew the filing and I'm not sure what the protocol is for such in any case, but I remain concerned that the {{adminhelp}} template suggests that an editor will receive a response in a timely fashion when that does not seem to be the case in practice, and at least one admin acknowledged that they deliberately ignore such requests. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the best course of action...or if you feel the best course of action is no action, please feel free to say that as well. Thank you for your input. Doniago (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As I noted in ANI, the Adminhelp template is never to bring the attention of an admin to an urgent situation - that is what WP:ANI, or WP:AIV, or WP:AN/3RR are for - depending on the situation. As a minimum, ANI is for "instant" action. The adminhelp template is typically used to draw the attention of a "senior" editor, and possibly with someone who has the ability to edit through certain types of protection. It is never in my history been used to bring admins to a situation - and by doing so, you're expecting an admin to jump in with no backstory or reason. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Then, as I stated in my ANI filing, perhaps the purpose of the template needs to be made more clear. The documentation primarily only states that it can be used, "if you need help from an administrator," which was the case at the time I invoked it; I wanted an experienced set of eyes on a conversation that appeared to be escalating into incivility, without necessarily resulting in disciplinary action.

Additionally concerns were raised that the template was being ignored for being too general; I suggested the possibility that more specific templates could be created to categorize requests, but did not receive a response to my suggestion. Doniago (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, I'm a bit short on ideas for fixing it. But a good place for discussion might be Template talk:Help me. You can leave a message on WP:AN as a notification to get other admins to chime in. One thing I'm curious about, is that Template talk:Admin help is a redirect to a different template's talk page. There has to be a story behind that one. -- Atama頭 23:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that myself...I assume the goal was to consolidate discusssion of similar templates, though it seems rather anomalous. Thank you for the suggestions, I'd definitely like to see this situation reviewed and maybe get the template revised accordingly, or more specific templates developed if other editors feel that is a good way to proceed. Doniago (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi Atama, Thank you for your note. It is appreciated. I read the page you linked about COI. After reading the section about single-purpose accounts I can understand why you or others may have concerns that there is a conflict of interest. The article in question is my first biography (a work in progress) of a living person under the pseudonyme Country music aficionado. I started other biographies of nobable Tennesseans (which also need work): Bill Herzer and Bill Taylor (Martial artist), but under a different pseudonyme. I have no financial interest or expect to derive monetary or other benefits from creating the articles. I want to create from a neutrality view point. Your assistance is welcome.Country music aficionado (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ok, but using different usernames makes very little sense, as per the username policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, Country music aficionado. I meant to provide a link to the conflict of interest noticeboard discussion but I had mistyped it. I fixed it on your user talk page, or you can click this link to read it. Brianhe is the person who had initially expressed concerns with your edits, so you can discuss matters with him directly or on the noticeboard. I myself haven't looked directly at your edits so at this point I have no opinion about any potential conflicts of interest you might have, but note that while a COI may include direct financial gain, that is not the only way a person would have a COI.

I'll also echo what Bwilkins stated above. People are strongly discouraged from having multiple accounts unless under very specific circumstances. Each account should only be used by a single person, and each person should only use a single account. If you had an older account that you abandoned, however, there is nothing wrong with that, you just should not use both accounts simultaneously. -- Atama頭 01:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding/stalking

ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was told not to interact with me for 3 months, by you diff. I was told likewise, and I kept away from him. Now, as soon as the ban has expired, he wikistalked me to BLPN to post a disruptive, mostly off-topic slur. diff

I ask that this person, who has become a nightmare for me, following me from article to article to post spiteful and barely comprehensible attacks, be blocked from interacting with me in perpetuity, please. Wikistalking is rampant and is the sort of thing (inter alia) that forced me to start multiple accounts, and it needs to be strongly, even harshly discouraged. Jabbsworth  05:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)