Jump to content

User talk:Athaenara/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is an archive of discussions from 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 4   Archive 5   Archive 6 →

Conflict of interest discussions in 2007

→ Note: A mouse kindly retired me from March·April·May·June 2007 COI noticeboard archiving. —A. 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)"[reply]

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)"[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks... Enjoy your break... —Æ. ✉ 13:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
User_talk:AnonEMouse#Sockpuppet_Case … Travb (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
…[that user] is shameless. I wonder how long until it all catches up… — Æ. ✉ 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
("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.

Updated links for some archived discussions:

(Travb ended up at Okip. – Athaenara ✉ 22:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The thought had crossed my mind too. Ruhrfisch 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whoops, archived too soon, I see! (Brought it back.) — Athænara ✉ 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And back it goes. I have Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio and the AMA page on my watchlist. — Æ. ✉ 04:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

No problem, you're welcome as always too. — Æ. ✉ 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Indeed we do. Silence is truly golden. — Æ. ✉ 07:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)  [reply]

You're welcome! — Athænara ✉ 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree and posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodless bullfighting. — Æ. ✉ 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As per WP:AN/I protocol, I left a courtesy notification on the user's talk page. — Æ. ✉ 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, interesting, section already archived. — Æ. ✉ 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good idea. Puts the responsibility on his shoulders, which is where it should be. Thanks. --Ronz 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! — Æ. ✉ 03:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

You're welcome. — Æ. ✉ 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

→ (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User Justanother

→ See also: WP:ANI Archive135#Justanother checkuser case and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm sorry if you took my last question as glib, it wasn't meant to be. I really would like your advice. You asked me to stop dealing with Justanother, and I'd be happy to do that but it doesn't address the problem of what you called his WP:SPA nature. If you have no advice, that's ok too. Anynobody 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An apology

→ In re: "An apology" (02:05, 30 March 2007 UTC). Compare: "shooting fish in barrels" (15:48, 13 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)[reply]

Pointers

Did you use a template for this diff? Just curious, I had linked the AfD at the bottom but your way was more likely to be noticed/cleaner. Thanx for the input. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's not a template, it's just a format I've developed informally over time to draw attention to small additions of significant information. — Athaenara 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still changing, too. — Athaenara 06:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript:   → '' <u>See also</u>: [[page]] ''   is the markup I use for it lately. — Athaenara 07:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

MOCHIP

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anchor

→ (In re WP:3O requests, COI/N reports, WP:AN/3RR reports, article RfC, user RfC…)

Hi Athaenara, I want to just thank you for all your thoughtful help with Anchor, not only did you file a third opinion, but when the other party involved managed to have me blocked, you stepped in to try to help. I am happy the article is protected and thus the issue at rest for now, though Badmonkey seems very insistant on having his way and the COI notice did not seem to result in much. Though I am of the opinion that consensus at the moment suggests to leaving the section out which I origonally objected to, especially given Hoof Hearted's amazing effort to learn about the issues involved and then thoughtfully comment. Though regardless of consensus having been reached I dont think this is the last we will see of this issue, at least its at rest for awhile though! Thank you again for your thoughtfulness and help. Russeasby 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! You're right about editor consensus while one editor—and we're quite clear on which one—is not only disruptive, tendentious and uncivil but dishonest as well. After his second or third interjection on the 3RR page I just ignored him. — Athaenara 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Original Barnstar
For going out of the way to help in an edit conflict and trying to ensure fair treatment among the editors involved. Russeasby 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, protection was lifted from Anchor and as I was worried would happen, User:Badmonkey is back and he readded the section. I do believe consensus was reached on the talk page, but apparently he does not think so. Can I ask for your kind assistance and advice on how to proceed from here? I have not reverted his edit, I do not want to go through all that again. Any advice you give I will happily take and follow. Thank you! Russeasby 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ctbolt has the right perspective on consensus and policies and guidelines. I recommend letting him take the lead for awhile. — Athaenara 08:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ask here, as I know you dont like posts here related to articles you already watch. But I felt this question did not belong on Talk:Anchor as it is a WP policy question. So my question is, would it be a violation of WP:CANVASS to leave notes on the pages of people who had previous contibuted a third party opinion for Anchor to notify them of the current WP:RFC active there. I am doing my best to abide by policy in all respects, but its getting rather complicated and some things such as this are not clear to me, thus why I ask for advice. Russeasby 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown good judgement in posting here, in my experience, so don't worry about that caution—it's intended for, hmm, well, I'll show you diffs sometime, more clueless users.
I saw the RFC and I expect to post* as one of the uninvolved parties later today. I think there's nothing wrong with notifying other NPOV editors of the RFC if they have previously commented and might have more to say, as long as you do it wholly neutrally without soliciting particular sorts of input such as support or condemnation. [Post.]*
Remember you have a life outside of what one linkspamming COI SPA has turned into a dreadful little battleground, and remember there's no particular time limit to RFCs, nor mandated conclusions. — Athaenara 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't easy to take my own advice when, with characteristic ruthlessness, he posted a flurry of interjections and trumpeted "you are now anything but uninvolved…" — Athaenara 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have stepped away from this dispute, but I have opened a Request for Comment on User:Badmonkey, if you could step in a moment and certify that you attempted to resolve the dispute I would be grateful. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badmonkey Russeasby 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! — Athaenara 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Killick

→ (In re Marie Killick article & report now in section #8 of COI/N Archive 6)

Thanks for the formatting. I'm not sure where this is going to go. As there are big COI and single-viewpoint issues with the main sources, access to contemporary newspapers is really necessary. It seems to have been a popular story with the lowbrow papers; The Times mentions only the bankruptcy proceedings. Tearlach 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This inventor's story is a significant episode in the history of audio engineering. — Athaenara 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Killick vs Pye Ltd case seems also significant on the patent law circuit, as an often-quoted precedent that a patent doesn't need to be a major developmental leap in a technology to be valid. Tearlach 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Taking time out from reading about sabre-toothed Thylacosmilus, Creodonta and Nimravidae)—Killick's daughter's website has several photographs showing datelines for contemporary 1950s newsmedia. Would that we could find text online to cite them more directly. — Athaenara 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, someone did! The New York Times (1958) and Chicago Tribune (1959).
Way to go, Crockspot! — Athaenara 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bichon Frisé

Hi Athanaera, could you please take a look at Bichon Frisé and particularly the edits of User:Canadian Bichon Frise? I will violate WP:3RR if I revert once more, but this looks like a SPA for COI and spam edits. If you think the links inserted are inappropriate and revert them, I will report any subsequent 3RR behavior. If you think they are fine, I defer to your judgment. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I think you'd make a great admin.

You're right. User Canadian Bichon Frise and user Canbichon are both linkspamming. I restored the version which existed prior to their intrusion. — Athaenara 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reverts! The funny thing is I don't even care for Bichon Frisés, but I will fight to the death for their right to a spam-free article here ;-) Ruhrfisch 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that. Check out the useful {{Uw-spam1}} and associated user warning templates, too—they look very useful. — Athaenara 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the revert after the 3RR warning. — Athaenara 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Canadian Bichon Frise reported by User:Ruhrfisch (Result:Indef block; SPA)—nice work! — Athaenara 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and the useful templates (I tend to forget about the UW series and did not know the 3RR template at all). If only they were all this easy. Ruhrfisch 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I'm on the learning curve too. — Athaenara 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with COI SPAs

→ (In re COI/N discussions of DeVry University & COI SPAs and WP:ANI reports.)

I appreciate your closing of the initial bad faith report and summarizing the real problem.

I'm amazed how you were able to turn six long rambling reports on multiple notice boards into one simple clear statement and a few links.

Impressive!

Thanks and have a good day... --Parzival418 09:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you, Parzival, for appreciating my work and taking the time to tell me! — Athaenara 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I thought you might want to know how this turned out. A checkuser was performed and confirmed that the accounts were sockpuppets. The disruptions continued for another day or two, but now Codeplowed and his IP have been blocked for a month, and the sockpuppet accounts blocked indefinitely. The report is here on WP:AN/I. So once again, thanks, your help was instrumental in solving this difficult situation. --Parzival418 Hello 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the update. I added a pointer to the now-archived WP:AN/I discussion to the WP:COI/N discussion as well. — Athaenara 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be getting bored with this by now, but if you're not,... Codeplowed already made two more socks, disrupted the article again, was reported again, the 2 new socks have already been blocked. Here's the quickly resolved SSP report: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Codeplowed (2nd). --Parzival418 Hello 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm not bored, just sidelined by browser/skin anomalies. Please continue to keep me informed according to your own good judgement. — Athaenara 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: "browser/skin anomalies" now in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 0#Computer issues.

MDS America merge

→ (See also Watchlist this article|unwatch))

Hello. In a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination), a merge of the article MDS America into MVDDS dispute has been proposed. You can voice your opinion, if any, on the matter at talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America. Thanks, nadav 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endal

→ (In re Endal section in COI/N Archive 10 and AfD.)

Not sure if you intended to undo my change here or not [2]. I am guessing this happened because you were working from a sandbox copying things over? If thats not the case, thats fine too, but I do think the history section is more appropriate first. Russeasby 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't even see it until I'd looked at the talk page and commented there. "New messages" flagged me down while I was looking at the article histories and trying to find the previous content your post mentioned. If you haven't already done so, follow through on placing the history/background section where it's best situated. Sorry my edit interfered with yours! — Athaenara 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ (In re: Talk:Endal#Pedigree)

Just a quick note to say thank you for your help in bringing the Endal page in to line with WP rules. I have pasted an article in the Endal discussion page, sent to me by the Labrador Club of Great Britain, which I hope resolves the "which Earl" problem (I do though have to salute your very thorough research, your personal effort in doing so is much appreciated and sets the standard for any additions)

Re the reference books, please free to contact us as I hold copies of all the books mentioned that Endal either has chapters in or is heavily referenced. But by your past record I don't think you'll need my help on this one either. Endal and Allen 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouragement, you guys! — Athaenara 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing

→ (In re: COI/N Archive 7 and Right to vanish)

Yes right to vanish does include blanking materials from google searchability. Content remains in the article history and no revisions were ever deleted. This is entirely appropriate per right to vanish. Please do not revert again. Feel free to review the discussion here for a second opionion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is not a problem. All I'll do then is check the archive to see that the single section was removed with all its pesky markup; it's a little tricky with the collapsible collapsed navbox format. — Athaenara 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)   [Done.][reply]

Archived section

→ (In re: report now in section #17 of COI/N Archive 11)

Hi Athaenara. Regarding this edit you made: (edits under line 200) What was the reasoning for moving the Roy Gordon Lawrence part to archive. I didn't see any notes as to why this was removed and was just curious on process, methodology, etc. Just trying to understand. Was this a mistake or intentional? Andyru 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual on an active noticeboard to archive inactive sections after two weeks or so. The one you refer to here had been inactive since May 1.
If a report needs more attention, returning it from an archive is not a problem, and I'll be happy to do that for you if you like. It will help, I think, if you can clarify it a bit, as it's hard to know what was meant by "scroll to bottom and view highlighted text." — Athaenara 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Sure, bring it back and I'll make it more clear. If it goes inactive again, well then that should prove that it isn't worth the interest of public reviewers :) Andyru 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Athaenara 14:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law Practice Today

→ (In re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today)

Please see my suggestion regarding Law Practice Today on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today. Cheers. --Edcolins 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thanks for the note. — Athaenara 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like minds

→ (In re: Raritan Computer section now in COI/N Archive 13)

I see you have set decreasing limits on Raritan too. I deleted some of the fluff, and then asked Seraphimblade to help out and he deleted a bit more. I just shook my head when all they wanted to do was decide which unsourced version to revert to. I figure that eventually when they see the article disappearing, they'll wake up. If I actually had time, I'd do some quick research and find some sources for them. Its an old enough company, something has to exist on them, somewhere. :) peace in God. Lsi john 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia really is an encyclopedia, not free content hosting for whatever commercial interests come down the pike. — Athaenara 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bookuser

→ (In re: User Bookuser section, now in COI/N Archive 12)

Could you consider reading through and comment on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Bookuser? It looks like this is close to being settled, and fairly easily. There is still the issue of Bookuser overlinking MIT Press and Semiotext(e) as in Paul Virilio#Bibliography [3]. Your perspective would be appreciated. -- Ronz  17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bookuser's decision to suggest links on article talk pages rather than add links at will to articles is what one would hope as per NPOV policy. I checked the Virilio bibliography and linked each publisher once, which is sufficient. I haven't checked others, though. — Athaenara 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think linking like this should be brought to Bookuser's attention? Discussed on COI/N? Both? -- Ronz  22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editors either don't notice or eventually reduce such overlinking. There's certainly no harm in mentioning it on either or both. — Athaenara 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome

Hello ... you replied to my comment regarding Instructions in Noticeboard/Header create a problem, and I noticed that you had also commented on WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (which, BTW, I believe may be safely closed now) ... I don't know if you've been following "The Project" to bring VAwebteam (talk · contribs) up to speed, but I'm having a Civility problem with another editor at User talk:VAwebteam#To do list (can you say, "Going off-topic without making any contributions?")

I try Very Hard not to feed trolls, but I've recently wasted another block of pre-scheduled time responding to Johnbod (talk · contribs) about their insistence on following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the policies and guidelines in this situation, and I would really appreciate an intervention before it escalates to the level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

I'm sorry, but if the time that I had set aside to work on a specific Wikipedia page is instead consumed by responding to their WikiLawyering, then I consider their posts "disruptive behavior" ... I had neglected to remember that Johnbod was the one who inserted that "entire history" vs. "entire art history" distraction into VAwebteam's COI discussion, otherwise I would have simply ignored them when they showed up on VAwebteam's Talk page, so I guess I only have myself to blame for taking their bait a second time. :-)

Anywho, thnx fer any assistance that you are willing to render on User talk:VAwebteam#To do list ... and please mark this plea for assistance as another disruption of my time, as well as (possibly) yours. Happy Editing! —72.75.100.232 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "OK! Is this resolved now?" is a comment, I commented. Like quicksand, bickering on the sidelines is best avoided. I am particularly wary of such at the moment because of another situation which has many of the signs and symptoms of tendentious editing. — Athaenara 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that … dealing with a WikiVandal should always take priority over a Talk page WikiTroll … I'll bug Some Other Editor who is both more familiar with the situation and with whom I've had more contact. :-) —72.75.100.232 02:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timestamps

You edited my recent post on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (about my Navbox snafu) with the comment, No need to change sig/timestamp on earlier post, though. Restored that. … look at the edit history, and you'll see that I did not edit the comment to make any such revision manually … my Verizon DSL IP address changed yesterday because of a momentary power failure that rebooted by modem, which you'll find documented on the User pages for both IPs… —72.75.70.147 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs retrieved from COI/N history. — Athaenara 12:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! I guess my evil twin was just trying to avoid confusion from what may have looked like a single use account ... that IP lasted less than 100 hours between the 68.xxx and this one, as I recall ... that was a Very Stressful weekend for me (as I recall; I try to forget unpleasantness ASAP), so my sincere apologies for (a) doing something Really Dumb, and (b) denying it because I had forgotten what/why I did it. :-) —72.75.70.147 09:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (a.k.a. The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome; see User talk:72.75.70.147/WikiGnome.)[reply]

Peter Nehr

Thanks for reverting the tags on this article. It really needs a clean-up, but I may be too biased to do a good job myself. Bearian 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, I'm pretty new to COIN. I notice you closed some entries, including Overton Loyd. Is this something that any editor can do? If so, do you think I would have been justified in closing that one myself (since another editor had already reported that the situation was resolved?) And what exactly is the process for doing so? Thanks for any tips… -Pete 05:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm on my way out the door, but the first step is to read the instructions at the top of the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page. — Athaenara 05:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had looked through and missed that bit about closing. I think I understand it, but may be back with questions if/when I find one worthy of closing…appreciate the reply! -Pete 06:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COI/N archiving so far

A discussion which has concluded may be boxed with top {{coit}} and bottom {{coib}} markup:

{{subst:coit | [[article]] | Result. | ~~~~~ }}
==Section heading==
* {{article | articlename }}
* {{userlinks | username }}
Report and subsequent comments.
{{subst:coib}}

The article and result fields are filled in for each section. An example from COI/N Archive 14:

{{subst:coit | [[Kossar's Bialys]] | Resolved. | ~~~~~ }}
==[[Kossar's Bialys]]==
( Report and subsequent comments. )
{{subst:coib}}

"Resolved" "Inactive" and "Article deleted" are typical but not universal results. The templates are {{subst}}ed (see template substitution) and will expand after a page save.

The {{coit}} and {{coib}} markup may be added either before or after a section is lifted and transplanted as a single block of text from the noticeboard to the archive selected from the COI/N archive toc.

But it could be changed
Volunteers?

My mouse will no longer do massive copying and pasting. Fortunately, there are other editors with tougher ones. Maybe you're one of them? — Athaenara 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent, thank you for the detailed instructions! I will try to jump into these on occasion. I am a bit wary of potentially-contentious debates these days though - I've found they can reduce my wikifun a bit. But I'm definitely up for the challenge, just might be a little slow to take it on. My first COI/N experience was very positive, with an editor I chastised going out of his way to thank me for my input…so I'm definitely interested in sticking with it. Thanks! -Pete 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm very glad you're interested. I don't expect much if any disagreement about changes because relatively few editors take on tasks such as noticeboard archiving. It comes down to a willingness to do the work. Note: when I first happened upon BLP/N in February, more than 140 of its 185 sections needed to be archived and had not been. — Athaenara 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ (In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 15#EServer.org & Special:Linksearch/*.antislavery.eserver.org)

Athaenara -- I shall pass on any further immediate address to deleted links in the slavery-related articles. The past several days have been interesting but diversionary, and attention needs to be paid elsewhere. Late this month I shall return to this matter via talk pages on the individual articles. When we get around to that, I shall notify you and look forward to working with you on review of these links. Cheers, --Jlockard 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. — Athaenara ✉ 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am delayed in returning to work on external links to slavery-related articles. Reality, deadlines, that sort of matter. There is, however, not the slightest rush here. Jlockard 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with linkspam

WP:LINKSPAM

Recently User:Dking has resumed this activity -- see [4] and [5]. Also see similar edits by User:Cberlet: [6], [7], and [8]. --Don't lose that number 07:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ In re various COI discussions including, among others, the following:

  • Note: the abortive RfM was attempted by Cberlet.
Cberlet and Dking are both COI SPAs: they are each single purpose accounts and they each have a very obvious personal and professional conflict of interest.
Note: as of June, I am not active on the noticeboards. — Athaenara ✉ 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VA Web Team

→ (In re: Victoria and Albert Museum sections (1) & (2) in COI/N Archive 12. —A.)

Hello, I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page. Also, if you can bear it, my To Do List has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at all of the pairings of articles with V&A content, but those I studied (e.g. Leighton House Museum, Ardabil Carpet, Issey Miyake's "Pleats Please," the History of knitting) seem to me to contribute appropriate content of high quality to the encyclopedia.
After assessing one instance more closely—the Richard Avedon "Dovima with the Elephants" photograph for the Dovima article—I took the liberty in this edit of placing the V&A citation and adding reference format for the external link which was already there.
I must compliment you on the work you've been doing! — Athaenara ✉ 14:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your help and spending your time on this. May I ask for your help again in the future? VAwebteam 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed you may. I found the eclectic assemblage of topics very absorbing. In almost every instance the pertinent V&A resources better serve as inline references for encyclopedic content than as external links. — Athaenara ✉ 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say something about VAwebteam's amazing image for the Ardabil Carpet article, but it really speaks for itself. — Athaenara ✉ 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tassajara

→ (In re: WP:COI issues on Tassajara Zen Mountain Center and request for a third opinion)

Hello! I´m thw1309. You asked for a third opignion about the article Tassajara. Please could you explain your opignion about the changes, which were removed on the article´s talkpage. --Thw1309 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on Talk:Tassajara Zen Mountain Center#Content. — Athaenara ✉ 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot archiving for COIN?

→ See also: User talk:Athaenara/Archive 5#Question about COI/N archiving. —A.

Hi Athaenara! Since you stopped archiving, the COI noticeboard is turning into a slum. It's now up to 280 kb, it has grass growing between the bricks, etc. Would you have any opinion on archiving by bot? I helped the WQA board to switch to that system in July, and of course WP:AN and WP:ANI do it that way. It would mean some issues may not be crisply resolved, and some people would miss that. It would also keep things current, and it's less work. A 12 day timeout might be considered (vs. 1 day for ANI, 2 days for AN). EdJohnston 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O, the irony. You posted here mere hours (21:52 - 17:16 = 4:36) after I removed a discussion of COI/N archiving from this page because it had been inactive for more than a month. I think your idea of bot archiving with two weeks grace is good. — Athaenara ✉ 03:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I closed more than forty sections which had been resolved or inactive since July or earlier. The situation is absolutely appalling. COI/N Archive 17 is open, but my computer mouse will no longer do massive copypasting to move sections into archives. I hope the section closings will aid followup by other editors with heftier equipment. — Athaenara ✉ 02:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YaY, MiszaBot II is on the job! — Athaenara ✉ 16:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Of course those (like me) who occasionally browse through the old issues will now have to browse the Archive. EdJohnston 16:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now on to bot archiving for BLP/N? A look at its page history just now showed it has reached 373,265 bytes! — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I shouldn't have mentioned this to you, who work much harder than Wikipedia has a right to expect of anyone. The issue itself, however, is being discussed on BLP/N talk: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Archiving by bot?* — Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(* Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Archiving by bot?)

TREC

→ In re: Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
      and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#User Benderson2 and TREC.

On the TREC issue, it's starting to look that you might need some admin help on the article Talk page. It's unfortunate that COIN has not been had many patrollers lately. Maybe it's something about the vacation. Usually you get a few good blasts of indignation about the more inexcusable stuff, but it's been very quiet. (Except in some cases where people come to the noticeboard along with the issue). I've seen Jehochman around, but not too many other people. Even WP:RSN is rather dull these days. Maybe the TREC stuff will escalate up to a real noticeboard, and something will happen! Also the TREC issues seem to require very careful study of the references, which may discourage newcomers. The most blatant stuff is the behavior of the webmaster. EdJohnston 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I thought I was getting my own perma-Knock-knock section on your page! You're right. I've noticed the zero input for the COI/N updates too. — Athaenara ✉ 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on COI/N about the Nis Randers posts. — Athaenara ✉ 21:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this please?

→ In re: Anti-stuttering devices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Special:Contributions/Tdkehoe.

Hi Athaenara, I found Anti-stuttering devices on Peer Review here with this red flag "The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something." I left {{uw-coi}} on the author's talk page and am not sure if this should go to WP:COI/N or not. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be listed on COI/N. There's a backlog there, but that's a matter of inactive sections which should be archived. The article has some WP:NOT issues as well. (I wonder why Tdkehoe listed it on Peer review/Glasses, an odd location for it.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Athaenara, I have listed this at COI/N. I think the peer review was listed under Glasses' peer review as the user did not know how to properly include the request in Peer Review and just added it to the last one on the list. It has since been fixed there, though the article in qustion is still very non-encyclopedic. I will at least add some cleanup tags there next. Your help is, as always, greatly appreciated, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sought

→ In re: User:Tdkehoe and previous discussion above.

Hi Athaenara, back in September you looked at Anti-stuttering devices, whose primary author (User:Tdkehoe) is head of a firm that makes said devices. I left a COI notice on his talk page then, we both did some cleanup of the article, and I listed the article at COI/N, but it was archived without any comments. The article is still very problematic, and he has also been working on Stuttering, which was demoted from Featured Article recently (see the FAR). Since the FAR he has been reverting / removing from Stuttering well-sourced material (based on peer-reviewed research) that goes against his products (see Talk:Stuttering).

Now SandyGeorgia (and, to a lesser extent, I) have stepped in, but I was wondering what advice you have here? Relist Anti-stuttering devices at COI/N? List Stuttering and/or User:Tdkehoe at COI/N? RfC the article? RfC the editor? All of the above? Run screaming to Jimbo? ;-) Any advice or help you could offer here would be appreciated,

Thanks in advance and happy Thanksgiving a day late, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, single-handedly getting an article demoted from featured status is not the kind of accomplishment most of us aim for. I see that in this edit he removed spam, COI and copyright notices from his talk page, too. I'll give this some thought. — Athaenara ✉ 07:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue should be relisted on COI/N (fortunately, inactive discussions there are now archived by bot, so it's no longer choking on its own mass) and the other editors who were trying to address the problems this COI SPA has caused should be notified of it. — Athaenara ✉ 07:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The COI/N report should be both brief and comprehensive to the extent that is possible. The issue is specifically the Tdkehoe account, a coi spa. — Athaenara ✉ 07:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, now that I've re-read the devices article and its talk page, that you have been dealing very effectively on your own, but you probably would not have posted here if you felt that was sufficient. Please feel free to post more if you wish. — Athaenara ✉ 10:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will list him at COI/N and give you the link. Appreciate the advice - just wanted to make sure I was doing this right as I am not often involved in COI disputes. FYI, it will probably take me some time to make the COI/N notice, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1 is the content expert, and I think s/he can eventually restore Stuttering as long as there's no interference. (S/he is *very* busy in real life.) But, s/he has raised issues of possible sockpuppetry on my talk page,[9] and I'm also concerned about Kehoe's extensive writing at Wikibooks. I've never been to Wikibooks, but he lists a number of articles on the FAR, and links to them in the alt.support.stuttering newsgroup and FAQ. I'm afraid this one is a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, this is why it needs to be listed on COI/N. A user talk page is inadequate for the coverage and attention these issues need, and trying to deal on several different article talk pages yields burdensome repetition and reduced effectiveness. — Athaenara ✉ 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In re the sock puppetry, would that be 67.140.217.232 and Stutterman? If they're doing the same, they should be listed with Tdkehoe in the COI/N report. — Athaenara ✉ 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to have backed off, and since we don't have Checkuser proof, I'm unclear if it should be raised? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they performed the same kinds of edits, the question arises and should be mentioned. If, for example, Tdkehoe were to be blocked for his obstructive and disruptive editing, after which one or both of the others resumed editing, it could lead to checkuser, but checkuser itself isn't required to simply stop them from doing that. — Athaenara ✉ 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks Athaenara. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed this at WP:COI/N, please see here. I can add the IPs if you think it best (had not seen the above before), thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Geoeg problem

→ In re: Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked indefinitely as of 7 November)
→ See also: Requests for comment/Geoeg, where discussions on several noticeboards are linked.

3O on Vaníček analysis?

You took the 3O note down, but you haven't comment on Talk:Vaníček analysis. Are you going to? Dicklyon 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As my edit summary said, I removed it because there was a third editor who was participating (Zvika). As you've indicated that it still needs a third opinion, though, I've re-instated it. (See also: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks; I had misunderstood your summary. Zvika didn't really give an opinion on the topic we were discussing, which is whether to move the page. Thanks for commenting on the other one. Dicklyon 04:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome—see also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/#User Geoeg. — Athaenara ✉ 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to report his recent comments on Wikiquette or some place? Is there any suggested strategy for getting him to grow up and stop the personal attacks, besides banning him? Dicklyon 21:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your participation is welcome on both Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Geoeg. By the way, your ability to remain calm and civil in spite of that user's insults and provocation has been remarkable! — Athaenara ✉ 19:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've found that getting agitated just makes one part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Dicklyon 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As he's continued with posts and edit summaries like [10][11][12][13] I am really surprised that he hasn't yet been blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 04:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because nobody has asked to have him blocked. I might soon. Dicklyon 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it should probably be posted on WP:ANI. — Athaenara ✉ 04:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geoeg is now blocked for 3RR for 48 hours. But he has removed your COI tag from Petr Vanicek, and I have been advised to not touch it myself. I appreciate your support in dealing with this pushy newbie. Dicklyon 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The primary sources tag is probably the right alternative to the note tag I was using; at least it won't be opposed by anyone reasonable. By the way, it appears that footnotes are allowed either before or after punctuation. You and I prefer after, but should we be pushing that point here? I stopped after the first time he reverted me on it; or was it the second? Dicklyon 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the punctuation issue (I haven't changed that except when editing a line substantively) is small enough to simply be ignored until the user's far more disruptive policy violation issues have finally been dealt with effectively. — Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the user is still tirelessly generating further antagonism (even while blocked), I think it would be wise if you stopped responding to it. What do you think? — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try that for a while. I'm still working on the articles, and still clinging to the hope that he'll learn a bit and not just charge back in and start reverting, but maybe he'll learn better on his own. I'll shut up for at least 30 hours now. Dicklyon 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. I recommend an entire week ;-)   — Athaenara ✉ 22:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will attempt to ignore his comments to me indefinitely. But I may have to react to his article edits if someone else doesn't within a reasonable time; I'll try to give a day of delay if he's not doing too much damage. Thanks for the advice; I know I get too caught up in his game. Dicklyon 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's back, and worse than ever. When I got back from my brief (today only) trip this evening I found personal attacks on all the talk pages, and reverts to his Vanicek-centric POV in the articles (plus he reverted a changed ref from an independent one back to the one that I presume is by himself, or in any case an ex-student of Vanicek); and he keeps claiming I told him I'd be gone for two days. And he denies having said this when I tried to explain why Einstein might be notable but some others might not be. I'm starting to prepare a user conduct RFC about him; are you willing to sign on as one who tried to resolve the dispute about his conduct? Dicklyon 05:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. — Athaenara ✉ 11:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Athaenara ✉ 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help! I'm back-sliding. Can't help self... Dicklyon 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion about this edit: why not, for now, let both citations be in the article, leaving the more problem-ridden question of whether the citation Geoeg prefers should be in it at all for a later and perhaps more dispassionate analysis? He certainly should not be removing the {{COI2}} template, or the Cornette citation either. — Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I restored the other temporarily, simply to reduce what Geoeg apparently sees as invitations to edit war. — Athaenara ✉ 05:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, though referencing a guy's student for what his method is called certainly doesn't pass what I'd call WP:RS. Dicklyon 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. My interim edit was designed to address the temporary problem of a belligerent and antagonistic SPA editor, whose COI (and perhaps his paycheck, who knows?) drives him, who not yet been restrained from indefatigable edit warring over minutiae. — Athaenara ✉ 06:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's seems odd to me that while Geoeg has been busily deleting and adding posts on his talk page (recent contribs beginning here) during his third block, he has shown no interest (unless this was interest five days ago) in participating on his user Rfc. — Athaenara ✉ 03:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Voices

→ In re: Appalachian Voices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Thanks for helping me on the Appalachian Voices page! I was starting to get lonely!! D-rew (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "lobbyist" is the term used in the article which you added as an inline external link and to which I added format as an inline citation. “… Appalachian Voices has grown to require the work of more than 10 full time staffers including Washington lobbyist J.W. Randolph” is the exact quote. — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that

→ In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Moneybomb and user John J. Bulten (talk · contribs).

See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. He's trying to change WP:V to justify inclusion of the material viewed as unreliably sourced. Gordonofcartoon 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Bulten is aware that he is risking a block for disruptive editing and violations of the civility policy in pursuit of his conflict of interest. — Athaenara ✉ 16:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general obfuscatory style looks a classic example of WP:SOUP (compare [14]). Gordonofcartoon 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen that great page before! (Coincidentally, I added that compare diff on COI/N :-)
I posted a warning* [diff] to his talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*[located at User:John J. Bulten/Challenges‎#User COI as of 21:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)]
The first line in the diff quoted on WP:SOUP fits him to a T: “…filibustering, addressing criticism with pages of verbal fog while professing the utmost reasonability in doing so.” — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance on this, Athaenara.  :) One other cleanup item, that I was wondering if you could help with? It appears that Bulten started a User Conduct RfC page on me a couple days ago.[15] As near as I can tell, he's never actually added anything to it, and of course it's uncertified, though he's continuing to refer to it as a next step.[16] For the record, I'm honestly not sure why he seems to have singled me out on this particular dispute, since I've really had very little to do with the article. Anyway, since the 48 hours are up, could you see about deleting it please? Thanks, Elonka 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! — Athaenara ✉ 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much.  :) I wasn't too worried that it was going to get certified, but I'm planning a run at RfA soon, and wanted to keep that particular link, red.  ;) --Elonka 00:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

→ In re: John J. Bulten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Sorry, but would you be able to take a glance at this? I'm getting hassled on my Talk page now with another spurious line of argument: his trying to invoke WP:BLP for a fairly trivial comment I made. And he's still not accepting that his error is not something lying within complex nitpicks with rules, but is that complex rule-nitpicking is viewed as contentious in itself per WP:POINT and WP:GAME. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you soon on this. — Athaenara ✉ 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. It's rather tempting to forget politeness; it's a classic case of WP:SOUP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 48 hours this time. — Athaenara ✉ 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Elonka is now negotiating rather more diplomatically than I'd manage. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AtHomeNet

→ In re: deletion of AtHomeNet article. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtHomeNet.

This is the user Edenrage, and I can't figure out how to post a new post on this thing....

I'm kind of new at this, but I saw your name under the deletion for the page AtHomeNet, which was marked as ana advertisement. I amde sure the page only stated facts, and I lookad at the profiles for IBM, COke, and some other companies, and there pages had far more info which could be construed as advertisement. Everything on the AtHomenet page is verifiable, so how do I go about getting it undeleted? Also, if somehow it does not meet the criteria, please give me a specific example of how it does not.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The venue you seek is Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Why was my page deleted? is also helpful. — Athaenara ✉ 22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User JMorton

→ In re: user account JMorton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 19#COI: Jack Morton Worldwide.

I've unblocked the above user (who you indefblocked), on the proviso that he avoid all articles to which he and his company are connected. I hope you don't mind! I did it on a proviso, however:

Request for unblock accepted, on the condition that the user does not edit any articles to which he or she has any connection (specifically, but not including, Jack Morton Worldwide). Any edits that even border on a conflict of interest will result in a permanent block.

Sound like a plan? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the user's unblock request is not visible on the user's talk page; was it inadvertently dropped in a subsequent edit? — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to add to category

Hello Athaenara, Ive been setting up a number of articles of charities in the Philippines, the latest one here... Childhope Asia Philippines ... but i wanted to add these to the section on Category:Organizations based in the Philippines... but I cant see how to add them or how to place the tags on the charity areticles after, can you pls explain how i can do this? kind regards Susanbryce (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it's done. — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara/Archive_5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Athaenara/Archive_5&oldid=1218871827"