User talk:Atsme: Difference between revisions

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How sweet! Thank you, Govindaharihari. Your cupcake made it a nice day. Atsme^📞📧 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i just wanted to say that i enjoyed reading the article WP:AVDUCK. Thanks for creating it. One of the crucial issues your article highlights is that one has to be frankly political if one wishes to be a successful editor on WP. One problem that can arise, and that your article does not deal with, is if a new or relatively new editor confronts a duck or a flock of ducks who may also have the support of an Admin or a few Admins. (Such support may consist of an Admin building a tool to invite new editors who are having serious problems with a senior editor to offer criticism of that senior editor on a pseudo complaint page--the objective being to protect the senior editor from being repeatedly taken to ANI or Dispute Resolution, and also when new editors make their serious complaints on the pseudo complaint page it would be easier to tackle them through banning or blocking--away from the public eye of ANI and Dispute Resolutions.) Invariably the new editor is pushed into a corner and demoralized by the flock of ducks with their Admin allies (who are armed with tools like WP:ARBIPA); the new editor may stop editing on WP or if he continues he will no longer do any bold editing. A third, and most unfortunate possibility is that if the new editor is blocked, then he/she may resort to vandalism on WP (including showering abuses at the blocking Admin and/or others) through anonymous socking. Sure, ANI, dispute resolution, and ArbCom exist but first they are often very time consuming and secondly in my experience if you are taking on a flock of ducks (who moreover may have the support of a few Admins), then you will almost always lose the argument unless you have sufficient number of allies to support you on boards like ANI on WP (which is unlikely if you are a new or relatively new editor on WP).

I think one key reform that needs to be implemented to strike at the root of this problem is getting rid of 'bad' Admins; and giving incentives to retain 'good' Admins on WP. I don't know the details of how this should be done though, particularly since WP is understandably uncomfortable with getting rid of any Admins unless there is a strong reason to do so in view of the drop in people willing to be WP Admins. Soham321 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Soham321, I think I'm too disheartened about the ANI process and the biased responses of a couple admins, one of whom I once held in high regard, to respond with any sense of neutrality, so I'll just say "yep" and leave it at that. Thx for your comments - they are food for thought. Atsme^📞📧 17:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received an email from me regarding AAAS a few weeks ago - can you please fill out the form linked from that email? If you did not receive the email (check your spam folder), let me know. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Nikkimaria: - I did receive the email on May 25th - Your Individual subscription has been successfully entered for Science Online. I tried it out, and was able to access what I needed. Hopefully it will stay that way!! Thank you so very much for making this happen. Atsme^📞📧 22:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - I think perhaps that's the Elsevier email? I was referring to one for WP:AAAS, which didn't launch until June...but I'm certainly happy you're enjoying Elsevier access as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria The email I referenced issued an AAAS# - Science Magazine. I also have access to Science Direct (Elsevier) so I've got access to both. You did good!! Atsme^📞📧 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, interesting. Happy to hear that it worked out! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my decisions personally. It's just based on what I see and understand. Everyone has their own point of view. I came here to say that I admire your gut. You have the courage to stand up to admins. I have always been afraid because they can pull up any WP policy/guideline and take a millisecond to hit that block link. I admire that quality of yours. You don't see that around. I, as editor, feel discouraged and give the impression that admins are high superiority and there's nothing you can do to fight that fight. I am not sure if I am the only one feeling this way. That's it. Just a little words of encouragement, if you will. Fight that ANI report of yours. At least you will know if it was worth fighting that battle. Bye (: Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have character, Callmemirela, and I truly appreciate it. I thank you and respect your courage. Let's keep improving the stubs and do what we can to expand them to GAs and FAs. That's why we're here!! Maintain neutrality, make your content informational and encyclopedic but keep the prose engaging! We want people to read what we write! Collaborate with editors who are experts in their field - respect the project teams - ignore the disruption the best you can, and keep moving forward to build WP into an encyclopedia students and teachers will respect as a RS. Happy editing!! Atsme^📞📧 00:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here to long. I don't even remember my first account name. Hell I've used a few Ip's before this account and I've used a few when i forgot I even made this account. You know I had to argue the case that the state of Hawaii is not currently under military occupation. I'm sure you are aware there are a number of secessionist movements in the United States. You may or may not be aware that there are a number in Hawaii. These are fringe movements with low followings. It's necessary as you can understand to not give these movements any weight. We can't be the ones to legitimize these movements. They have to do so on their own. But the individual in question they didn't understand that their small movement was fringe and that would be wikipedia legitimizing it if we included it. I think it took a month to deal with them. Needless to say I was reaching the extent of my kindness and my respect.

You're tired Atsme. You're worn down. Why did you open a GA review right after that one closed? Honestly was it anything more than stubbornness? The prior one had just closed after sitting still for days. Was the way that went down wrong? Yes I will agree that it was. I've said that it was and prior I've made my opinion about this loud and clear. You were there. And because it was wrong in that GAR I asked some things of the individuals there. I asked them not to close that GAR themselves. They did so. I asked them to wait a few days before seeking an official close and they gave more than a few. You didn't, it seems, even attempt to address the highlighted problems. as my aunt would say, they pissed in your doll house. But even though pissed in your dollhouse the question becomes about the legitimacy of their content complaints. I view them myself and I see legitimacy. I ask you now if you have viewed them or have do you still see how they pissed in your dollhouse. If you are still seeing how they pissed in your dollhouse then really just have to walk away until you don't see it. You can not be mad and do this work. I've seen you try but it doesn't work out. This is however my opinion of what I've seen.

You now have grounds to go to ARBCOM. On the situation you just took to ANI. I recommend against it. You do have the grounds it seems. But ask you what is necessary for you to calm down and de-escalate. For you to be less emotional right now so that you can take a moment and make a clear decision of the best choice for you? Slow down and think about your next move.

It's never going to be unicorns and sunshine. Every job is important. We have people that just create stubs.Some people make GA's while others break them. There's people that just sit on the noticeboards. There's all kinds of things. Admins aren't more important than newbie editors. Nor are college professors or even Jimbo.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your wisdom, SJP. You're spot-on about tired and worn down. Just wanted you to know the GAN was made in GF based on the responses by Doc James, such as this edit summary. In retrospect, I think the following diff speaks volumes about his sudden interest and timing regarding the Racz biography, [2]. It's even more disheartening that he filed the GAR considering his position as an admin and functionary, and ignored the proper steps to take before doing so. In corporate speak we'd call it a hostile takeover. See the quote at the top of this TP because that's exactly what happened. Sorry, but I don't consider such an influence the perfect approach for biographies or for the project overall, even though certain aspects of it have merit. Certainly I welcomed what few improvements were made regarding sources and compliance with MEDRS. GF collaboration is always welcome and I expect the same in return. I also welcomed what little bit of copyediting and tweaks were needed in the prose but the remainder of what happened was unwarranted and based entirely on POV. Add to that, the PAs and incivility demonstrated by certain editors during the COIN fiasco, ARBCOM, Kombucha (which resulted in an unwarranted 7-day aBan against me by a biased admin), the attack on Racz, AVDUCK and the recent ANI...well, it leaves little to the imagination. The diffs will certainly provide substantive evidence of patterned behavior and motivation. As you correctly assumed above, the thought of ARBCOM entered my mind but I will heed your advice, contingent upon their future behavior and remain cautiously optimistic.

I don't know how closely you've followed the events as they unfolded, particularly here, [3]. Racz was the first article I created with help from Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. You know how our collaboration began at IPT, and while we all lost patience with each other from time to time, I truly appreciated Alf taking the time to understand the points I was trying to make. It all became clear to him when he started investigating the sources and realized the problem. I smile when I think back on those early experiences with you and Alf and how his advice had a calming effect. I miss him. He was patient and understanding but stern. He walked me through the creation of Racz, tweaked the prose as needed, helped me find sources and you both taught me things I needed to know about WP. Perhaps that's why Racz holds special meaning for me as does the Aztec sun on my TP. Alf nominated Racz for DYK, and showed me how to do the next one. When I nominated Racz for GA last year, it was reviewed by one of the best reviewers on WP. Racz has pretty much been stripped of its engaging prose and biographical content since then. In Doc's own words, In English their or boring words like "developed" and "designed" and promotional words like "pioneered" and "innovated". We should always be using the boring ones even if the sources use promotional language. It is mostly fixed aswell.[4] It is now focused on the medical procedures and treatments and as you will witness by comments on the TP, there is still unwarranted resistance for its promotion to GA. I've also studied the council guidelines for project teams and I am quite certain those guidelines are not being followed. It has caused disruption to the project, and while I have no problem keeping snake oil and crazy cures in their place and identified as such, I believe issues arise over NPOV on the opposite end of the spectrum regarding BLPs. There's also the malleability of MEDRS which is sometimes misused at the expense of NPOV. Kombucha is a pretty good example of the latter, and David Gorski is a good example of the double standard shown to BLPs. Atsme^📞📧 18:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)^{added underlined text later today 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Hello. Until the recent ANI-discussion and the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks our paths have never crossed, neither here on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and you have AFAIK never shown any interest in Wikipedia articles about rare species before, so would you mind explaining why you all of a sudden PRODded 14 well sourced and properly formatted stub articles about rare catfish species that I have created? Claiming that they don't belong on en-WP since species.wikipedia.org exist is IMO not a valid reason, especially not without discussing it with me on my talk page first. Thomas.W ^talk 11:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and now also nominating them for deletion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles belong in Wikispecies. Actually I do have an interest in rare and endangered fish species. A better option would have been to list all 16 of the rare species since all are of the same genus, Glyptothorax, in a single article, not 16 different articles that are less than stub quality articles taking up unnecessary space when they are nothing more than dictionary entries. They would serve more benefit in Wikispecies which I recommended in the deletion request. Atsme^📞📧 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to where it explicitly says we can't have articles about rare and endangered species here on en-WP. The reason they're short is that there is very little information available about those species, other than that they exist, and are rare. Also point me to diffs or other proof for your previously shown interest in rare and endangered fish species, because your actions look very much like trying to get back at me for voicing an opinion that you didn't like. Thomas.W ^talk 12:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. All correctly described species are considered inherently notable. I suggest you cease bombing these articles with PRODs.--Elmidae (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save your arguments for the deletion discussion. My suggestion to you now is to consider merging those 14 dictionary definitions into a single list if you want to keep them in mainspace without being challenged. I did not request an AfD for Glyptothorax_kashmirensis because it actually is a stub. Readers will actually benefit more from having all 14 species listed in a single article. They can grow into stubs from that list. Now please excuse me while I finish my work. Atsme^📞📧 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ^{added clarification 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

I cannot see why these species or subspecies are not qualified to be separate stubs. They can of course be mentioned in a main article but even if they only have one ref, that is sufficient for a stub article.--MONGO 18:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a taxobox holder. The fish are all the same genus and the most beneficial thing to do for the sake of readers is add them to wikispecies, and create a list on WP. The same taxobox can be used in the article, up to the point of naming the species - leave that for the list. Was the intention of this author to create articles for 90 some odd species with 90 some odd taxoboxes? That does not qualify under GNG and there's not enough information in each stub to warrant an article. Common sense - organize - think of the reader and why they would come to WP to find a two sentence article with a taxobox about a fish they wanted to learn something about. At least with a list you give them more options all in one organized place. So much for the unwarranted revenge prod. And I get blamed for causing disruption. Please move along and continue your discussion on the TPs of the stubbies your so proud of. Atsme^📞📧 21:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ^{strike inappropriate comment}[reply]

Atsme, I'm not your enemy. I do not disagree that it would be great to have a featured list of all species in a genus so we can get that overview, but as is true with many lists, they are linked to specific articles that may be very short stubs. What is wrong with that? Take List of hiking trails in Grand Teton National Park...each linked trail has a linked stub article, where the details are slightly expanded. Do you think these stubs should not exist independently? I'm just trying to get your angle on this is all.--MONGO 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO First, I apologize to you for my out of character comment. It arose from frustration and disappointment. I understand your point and agree for the most part. The stub articles you mentioned about the trails are legitimate stubs and can actually be expanded including the addition of more images. The list is quite helpful for readers and actually demonstrates the point I was trying to make about the catfish stubbies. For example, [Glyptothorax chindwinica] - a species of catfish that was first described by Vishwanath and Linthoingambi 2007. Glyptothorax chindwinica is a species in genus Glyptothorax, family Sisoridae and order Siluriformes. IUCN categorise the species as least concern globally. No subspecies are listed in Catalogue of Life. That is the full text of the stub which is not much more than extended prose mirroring the taxobox. As I mentioned before, since all 15 species/subspecies are of the same genus and only one of the stubs is worthy of being classified as a stub, (the rest are definitions), they could have been merged into a single list. Then as more information became available, off-shoot articles could be created. It's actually better for WP because it creates more wikilinks and increases the number of times the name appears in the text which causes it to appear higher up in a Google search. The species I exampled actually does have more information available, [5], so with some time and a little effort exerted toward improving what we create, the project benefits. That less-than-stub sat as is for nearly 11 months. I'm not sure why the author portrayed it as a "rare" catfish when that clearly is not the case. Atsme^📞📧 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see your block reduced, so how do we go about making that happen? I see your point but have to say that as an inclusionist, I would have probably voted to keep these articles. Is there still a way we can keep and still have have you make the list article your focus for now?--MONGO 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Atsme. Don't you see anything wrong with prodding 14 pages created by Thomas.W within a few minutes, and filling User talk:Thomas.W with 14 bulky proposed deletion templates, without discussing the general principle with him first? Bishonen | talk 11:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You asked me to stay off your TP, Bishonen, [7], so why are you here now? The proposals for deletion were made in GF and I will continue doing so regarding the ones I felt need to be deleted and moved to Wikispecies, or possibly merged into a list. They do not warrant being separate articles. I did not tag Glyptothorax_kashmirensis since it is a legitimate stub. What you're doing now - your immediate accusation that I've done something wrong - is why I believe you have a bias against me and this isn't the first time you've made accusations. The things you said about me at ANI demonstrated ill-will toward me [8] and coupled with your remarks on your TP, you need to recuse yourself and please cease further interaction with me. You are not a neutral administrator where I'm concerned and you showing up here now to accuse me yet again further demonstrates my concerns. I am just doing my job here for the reasons I explained to the editor. I do have an interest in rare and endangered fishes - see my user page - and now I am being wrongfully accused for simply doing my job? It doesn't matter where I go or what I do. I have grown weary of the PAs. Atsme^📞📧 12:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All properly sourced articles about correctly described species (as all of the articles you targeted are) are inherently notable, and belong here, and your PRODs and AfD-nominations were obviously made in bad faith. Your attempts at intimidation might work on editors who are less experienced than me, both on en-WP and in real life, but I can assure you that they do not work on me. Thomas.W ^talk 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at WP:AIN#Astme redux on matters which concern you. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you blocked. I have been trying to avoid that. I would support an unblock if it was coupled with a restriction from Wikipedia space, where you seem to display consistently poor instincts. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, it was unwarranted. The irony of it all is that I actually was trying to stay away from the articles I created that were hijacked by the "team members" and I went back to editing fish articles. Ha! My comments above to the author explain my reasons for proposing the deletions. They clearly are warranted and justified but I was attacked before I even had the chance to finish what I started. Swoosh down attack - totally unwarranted and for all the reasons they are falsely accusing me of doing. Sad. Atsme^📞📧 13:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because I was inclined to support (the other) Guy's suggestion to modify the block, but after reading the above I would like to see some indication that you understand why so many people are upset with your behavior and that you will aoid such behavior in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with Bish and came here to see if you would consider rewording your unblock request. I've been in your position and ended up with an indef block and topic bans in addition to that. Ping me if you are interested, or email me, and I'll be happy to help. GregJackP Boomer! 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock request justifies the block. It's amazing how often that happens, but in Atsme's case particularly there is a recurrent theme of everybody else being wrong, everybody else failing to assume good faith, everybody else being obdurate, and if only they'd admit Atsme is right the world would be sweet again.

Atsme surely knows by now about the WP:BOOMERANG. She's been warned more than once for abuse of process to try to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Several times in my personal experience she has continued to assert a specific interpretation of policy as the only possible correct one, in the face of numerous long-standing Wikipedians stating the opposite. The kerfuffle over Gabor B. Racz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is very reminiscent of that over G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with uncritical content being aggressively pushed on the grounds that it makes for a "good" article, which is the canonical opposite of the truth where the ideas in question are not widely supported - we have an absolute mission to challenge bullshit.

I think it may be too late. The disputed essay is the ship on which I think Atsme may go down. It was written as a retaliation against the cabal of MEDRS supporters, asserting the "pharma shill gambit", and I think that Atsme has by now gone into full-on paranoia mode. I have supported Atsme in the past due to content contributions, but reviewing recent actions really undermines that.

Overall, I think Atsme needs the break. I've gone on long Wikibreaks when things get stressful, it helps to get the sense of perspective back. I don't know if this works when the break is enforced, alas. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe the attempts to get rid of me now are rooted in the ARBCOM case I filed: [12] and the closing comments, particularly the one by Seraphimblade who said the following: while noting that the concerns raised here, if correct, are legitimate and serious. I will echo the suggestions to seriously consider what has been said here in the future. In the future. It explains the boomerang and the attempts to silence me at the noticeboards. When that didn't work, I guess Bishonen figured the block should do the trick. It didn't matter why she blocked me, it was going to happen regardless. You just don't block editors for RfDs especially when the reasons are valid. So why the block? Well, let's see....

• Was it because I created an essay that some members of project med don't like?
• Was it because I wouldn't oblige Doc James when he tried to force me into admitting I broke the law and committed a copyvio even though it wasn't true?
• Was it because AndyTheGrump said I was "beneath contempt" and he wished I got blocked from editing forever?
• Was it because the Racz article I created and got promoted to GA last year was attacked immediately after my COINoscopy and reduced to garbage by some of the same editors who have repeatedly shown ill will toward me since I created AVDUCK?
• Was it because of the COINoscopy I endured (which resulted in an apology so I won't belabor it)?
• Was it because of the intense disruption by AndyTheGrump who has a history of disruptive editing and who caused all kinds of disruption at AVDUCK and the ANI?
• Was it the unwarranted disruption by JPS who was banned from WP at one time but allowed to return despite his history of disruptive editing and repeated sock puppetry with 6 different user names listed on his user page?
• Was it because the same group of editors refuse to DROPTHESTICK at AVDUCK which caused me to file the ANI?
• Was it because of the unwarranted attacks and false statements made about me by JzG and Bishonen who now want me to apologize for ...... ????? I need a hint, please, because all I'm seeing now is POV_railroading. Are the reasons listed in any of the above?

No wait, I finally get it. It's ME - I'm the bad editor because I create articles, participate in DYK, help get articles promoted to GA and FA, I'm a pending request reviewer, a copy editor, occasionally help at DR, and I try to help newbies understand what steps to take when confronted by the same type of behavior I've been confronted with for damn near 8 months steady. Looks like I'm not a good candidate to advise newbies. I don't believe in AK. I guess the straw that broke the camel's back was my unruliness in trying to get dictionary entries over to the proper venue (Wikispecies) and for suggesting the author of 14 of those entries combine them into a list - one that possibly could have been improved to be a featured list. Of course, I was attacked before I ever got the chance to finish what I started.

But let's assume the worst which seems to be the norm for some - and say Atsme was being retaliatory against an editor she doesn't even know. That has to be it. I'm being accused of picking on that one editor because I had a grudge, but I didn't have a grudge against anyone else, right? Jiminy Cricket - is he/she an admin's son or daughter and that's why the special attention? Whatever the reason it was enough to get me blocked for a month while none of the above behavior against me warranted anything more than a frigging slap with a trout. But I'm the one who should apologize. That way I can come back to WP in a month as a beaten, downtrodden, abused female editor which appears to be a serious systemic bias on WP already. They want me to behave like an abused wife would behave. Yes dear, I'm sorry dear, I didn't mean to overcook the meatballs. I wish you hadn't thrown them against the wall but I realize it was my fault and I will clean it up and make you a better dinner. Please don't beat me with that stick anymore. It's really sad but there it is in a nutshell. Atsme^📞📧 20:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was because you flatly refuse to accept that any opinion other than yours could possibly be right. I invite you to contemplate the law of holes, and put down your spade with all due dispatch. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, Guy? I don't know what you expect of me. Give me something I can build on - specifics, please. What was I wrong about? The RfDs? Do you want me to say I shouldn't have requested deletion of the dictionary definitions and suggested they be moved to Wikispecies, or to combine them in a list? What? Atsme^📞📧 21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My last word on this: Stop. Fucking. Digging. If that does not immediately tell you what to do, then I honestly cannot help. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice in the ANI discussion a proposal has been put forward by Andy the Grump that you should be temporarily unblocked for the purpose of filing an Arbcom Appeal wherein you will only be permitted to write in the ArbCom appeal page. I would advise you against accepting this offer if it is made to you. The reason is that you must be in an emotional state of mind right now. If you do wish to file the ArbCom appeal then it is best to take a one month break, collect all the supporting diffs, and make your appeal to ArbCom in a cool and calm manner. You will have a better chance of success in your ArbCom appeal if you follow this approach.Soham321 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized this is a block, not a topic ban so appealing to ArbCom after the block period is over would be infructious. If you wish to appeal your block again you will have to admit some error on your part for your appeal to be successful. I think you can agree to the fact that while you continue to believe that the numerous stub type articles on Catfish species should have been merged into a single page you should have discussed this issue with other editors about this and tried to ascertain the consensus (on what seems prima facie to me to be the correct view) before nominating the articles for deletion. Soham321 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Soham321 - You incorrectly characterized AtG's comment. He suggested that Atsme be unblocked so that she could file a case at ArbCom, not an appeal. Atmse can appeal her block to ArbCom at any time without being unblocked by contacting BASC by email. Generally, however, this doesn't occur until several regular unblock requests have been rejected. BMK (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise Atsme not to file a request for a case to ArbCom at all, as she is bound to lose the case, the result of which will likely be a site ban. That's a fairly objective evaluation based on years of following ArbCom cases. The best thing would be for her to use the one month break from Wikipedia to re-evaluate her attitude towards her colleagues on this project, and to return to editing with a much less confrontational attitude. Without that change, this block will simply be followed by others, as her current modus vivendi makes that inevitable. BMK (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: I'm commenting here because you have previously told me that you have found my advice to be helpful, so perhaps I can be helpful again. I agree completely with what BMK just said. I hope that you will follow that advice. When the block is over, I hope that you will focus your efforts on content, and not on disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish I was focusing on content - that's what caused this block. I went back to editing fish articles after being pushed away from the article and essay I created and co-authored. I started to do a little article rating, and was looking into some other stuff I could work on when I found the 14 stubbies (15 actually, I left the valid stub alone) which were not much more than dictionary entries. I mean, really - c'mon - why would I single out an editor I don't know to cause him/her grief? No matter what I do they claim "retaliatory". Excuse me, but I don't have a grudge against that editor (don't hold grudges), and (2) if I was wanting to be retaliatory, I sure as hell wouldn't have picked that editor. There are quite a few others who would have been a much better first choice if I was going to be stupid. I simply believed the stubbies would have been more productive on Wikispecies (all are Genus: Glyptothorax) and if left here, combined into a list. They looked vacated to me - nothing in them but a few sentences - so I used TW save time. It wasn't like I committed some big sin like what was done to me or that I was involved in tendentious editing. I made requests for Pete's sake. This block is clearly retaliatory and punitive. Just read the comments. I'm the one who should have balked at the trout slap considering the hate filled comments that were said about me at the ANI and the fact that my work is being hi-jacked so a group of tendentious editors can change it to their POV. That isn't right and it certainly isn't what WP is all about. They're telling me I have to do things a certain way, but they don't? They can do whatever the hell they please and I get blocked for following PAGs? That's insanity. Atsme^📞📧 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme - Recently blocked editors are usually given some leeway to let off steam immediately after the block, but if you keep going on in the way you are going, with near-rants and continuations of your earlier arguments, it is more than likely that your access to your talk page will be cut off by an admin. Again, this comes from years of observation, and has nothing to do with "right" and "wrong", just with the norms of Wikipedia. When you are blocked, it is considered that the primary use of your talk page should be to address having the block reversed, not to use it as a platform for polemics. I would suggest that you take a break for a couple of days, and maybe file a new unblock request after you've had a chance to calm down a little and think about what happened. I wouldn't hold out high hopes for an unblock, but a sincere statement of an attempt to change your behavior pattern sometimes works wonders -- if it really is sincere, and is followed up by an active presentation of change. BMK (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't perceive the block as being for content edits, at least not primarily, but for how you reacted when other editors raised issues about it. I'm not seeing other editors hijacking anything, and I think that your seeing them that way is what causes the editing community to become unhappy with you. Let me revise what I said above: When the block is over, I hope that you will focus your efforts on content, and assume good faith if other editors disagree with your content editing – if they continue to disagree with you, just let it go, and don't pursue a dispute with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few observations. There were at least four Admins who wanted Atsme to be sanctioned in some way or the other in the ANI discussion prior to it being closed with everyone getting a trout. After she got out of that scrape Atsme should have considered herself lucky and should have been cautious when doing any bold editing at least for some time. Secondly, Atsme thinks it was ok to have nominated the fourteen stubs for deletion because they were according to her akin to dictionary meanings. I only partially agree with her. The fourteen stubs Atsme nominated for deletion were different species of Catfish, and in my opinion they should all have been combined into a single WP article (even though WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES says that each species can legitimately have their own WP page). I explained my reasoning for this in the ANI discussion in reply to Thomas W (the creator of the 14 stubs Atsme nominated for deletion): [13] I cannot claim credit for coming up with the idea of merging all the stubs into a single article since Atsme had suggested this before me (when she nominated the articles for deletion).

However, i think it would have been better for Atsme to have discussed the matter with other editors and evaluated consensus before nominating the articles for deletions. On WP, all editors are to be treated as equals irrespective of who is right and wrong and irrespective of how intelligent or knowledgeable you are. This is official WP policy and this needs to be respected. And she should have taken into account the need to be more cautious considering she just got out of an ANI discussion with no sanctions imposed on her. I think if Atsme acknowledges this error of not having evaluated consensus before nominating the stubs for deletion, then the Admin who evaluates her appeal to unblock her should approve it since it must be taken into account that she is a solid contributor to WP in terms of content, and secondly she is a female and there is a paucity of female wikipedians. Soham321 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is your change of heart the result of this [14]? I'm sorry if I caused any negative energy to flow your way. My only advice - apologize when you're wrong, defend your honor, and follow your heart. You can't go wrong. Atsme^📞📧 22:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, it has nothing to do with Jyotdog's note on my talk page. There is no change of heart. I am continuing to support you. Soham321 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly if you calmed down you could make a reasonable case here in your defense.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also must caution you as I and others have before about taking it to Arbcom.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SJP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)