Mistro12

Trying to learn the Wiki Way!--Mistro12 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mistro12! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra T C 21:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Administrator's incident noticeboard

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FUniversity_of_Atlanta.3F and please read WP:NLT. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And please clarify "The Accrediting agency is threatened to pursue further if the information is not removed immediately" who is the accrediting agency, and why are you saying they "is threatened" to pursue further? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Accrediting Agency is DETC, a recognized accrediting agency of the US Department of Education. They have cited this article as being defamatory as University of Atlanta is a wholly separate organization than Barrington. See discussion page of the article.--Mistro12 (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is you that is bringing the threat here. You must retract it or you will be blocked. Also, please note that you are being discussed on WP:ANI. Have you edited under a different user ID in the past? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Where have they "cited" this? This sounds suspiciously like make up nonsense, so sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to retract it, but failed. I posted my apologies on my behavior. No, I have not made any edits under a different ID.--Mistro12 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amithani for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. MuZemike 17:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistro12, if you are Amithani, or are closely connected with Amithani (i.e., also working at the UofA), I highly recommend disclosing all of this as soon as possible, and promising to act only as an advisor with respect to University of Atlanta, confining yourself to the Talk page there or user talk pages -- or other general editing having nothing to do with the UofA. If you do this, I think I could prevent you from being blocked, and might be able to help you with article problems. If you disclose immediately, the sock puppetry case will become moot. If you clearly retract legal threats, as well, all that flap will go away. Wikipedia does not punish (or shouldn't). But it will act swiftly -- or otherwise -- in order to protect the project, and if you've been using sock puppets, or waving a legal threat to try to get attention to what you want, you'll be blocked. Work with us, and we can work with you. Try to control or deceive Wikipedia, it will ultimately spit you out.

I'm suspecting from the drastic differences in ability to write cogent English that I've seen in your edits, that more than one person is using this account. If so, that should immediately cease. Each different person should have their own account, and if any of them have a conflict of interest (such as working for the University of Atlanta), that should be disclosed. The fact is that, if you have a conflict of interest and disclose it, you will probably be more effective than if you pretend not to: people will suspect it, from your actions (certainly you've been suspected of being Amithani or related from your first edits), and they won't trust what you say. If you disclose a conflict, and if you have a single account that can be held responsible for lying, people will expect you to defend the school, it won't be suspicious, and some of us, at least, will check out what you tell us, and you will build credibility.

If you are not Amithani, be aware that if you are accessing the internet from the same IP, checkuser is likely to come up positive; so if there is risk of this, you should, again, immediately disclose the possible connection, don't wait for a checkuser to come up with it. Basically, it's not terribly difficult to deceive Wikipedia for a time, but very difficult to maintain that, all it takes is one mistake and the game's up.

Assuming you are Amithani, or an employee, I assume you have better things to do than play cat and mouse with the experienced editors and administrators who become attracted by misbehavior and disruption. The AfD was disruptive. You know the school is notable, and "bad content" is never a reason to delete an article; rather, the content, if it's allegedly bad, should be fixed. All that can be done with patience and reliable sources. You are not going to be able to exclude reliably sourced but negative content from the article, but there is a lot you can do to help make the article balanced, so that the old problems of Barrington University do not unfairly besmirch the University of Atlanta. Many editors are suspicious of the UofA, for lots of reasons; however, the UofA did manage to gain accreditation from DETC, and that speaks volumes for it. Now, start behaving like the professionals that you are. Live up to the new image. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd- Thanks for the Advice. I’m not Amithani, but I do know him. I’m engaged with many principals of DETC schools. I’m at a dead end at this point. Some editors are just narrowed vision and can’t seem to look through my arguments; they are clearly supporting the administrators. I value others input, but I’m being pinned down for my ignorance.

I will try to retract the threat as it was wrongly conveyed. (not sure how to) Please tell me what are the next steps. I can get Amithani on the phone or have him reach out to you for help, but I truly feel the information on Wikipedia needs to be corrected. Please Advice.--Mistro12 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Mistro12, I'd like you to explain what this means: I’m engaged with many principals of DETC schools. It makes a difference.

If there is misinformation here, you will need to address it, specifically and clearly. If there is misinformation in what we consider reliable source, we can't just toss it based on hearsay. However, we can balance it with other information, also from reliable source. You will probably need help, don't be shy to ask for it. Look at what you see from other editors and pick an editor who seems helpful, and ask. To retract the threat, just say that it was wrong, explain in detail (here on your talk) what was behind the comments, and any errors that you made. It's unclear what you meant; it looked to me like you were saying that someone from DETC was threatening legal action. (which is preposterous, I'd think). So perhaps you meant that someone from UofA was threatening legal action. As the messenger of this, you can get shot. Conveying a legal threat from someone else is pretty much like making one. (If there are real concerns about legal threats, there is procedure which brings in Foundation legal staff, this is not a matter for us to resolve through ordinary discussion.) So, whatever, say that it was a mistake. The simpler and clearer the apology, the better. If you try to justify your original comment, it makes it weaker.

Pending your response, I'm assuming that you have a conflict of interest with respect to not just UofA, but any DETC school and DETC itself. I suggest behaving according to that, for the time being. It simply means that you recuse yourself from editing the article, and from following other process; as an example, you would not !vote in an AfD related to one of these schools or something connected with DETC. (But you could "comment," disclosing your conflict of interest.) But, then, you should be free to advise us and, in fact, almost anything that you could do legitimately as an editor can be done as an "advisor," it's just a matter of finding someone to help and to take responsibility for it. It takes a little more time, but it's far less stressful. There is even a way for you to direct edit an article where you have a COI, I'll tell you if it makes a difference.

Don't expect to fix Wikipedia errors quickly. Experienced editors, with solid reputations, can still find it takes time. But if you find solid sources, show them. You will learn what is solid and what is not, just be sure to pay attention to responses and avoid gratuitously insulting other editors and the Wikipedia community. We are human and though we should not take offense, we do. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no misinformation. All in facts I’ve provided are substantiated. I was originally employed by a DETC in the early 1990’s to help get them through accreditation. I left the school in late 1990’s, and since have been helping DETC schools undergo reaccreditation and new schools to obtain accreditation. The DETC process is very rigorous, hence, our Barrington School would never fly for accreditation, therefore, the ownership had to put it to rest and start a new university. (University of Atlanta)

I wasn’t involved with UOFA during the accreditation process, it was a colleague of mine, but I kept up on their successful evolution. This article has taken UOFA’s dignity by dragging it through the Barrington mud.

Thanks for your support. I'm glad to find an editor with some friendly advice! --Mistro12 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My humble apologies for unintentional threat!!

I ask the Wikipedia community, whom I offend for forgiveness on my unintentional threat over the UOFA article. I hope you will overlook such behavior and use my future feedback as genuine! --Mistro12 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mistro12. Thanks for taking this up, and for the withdrawal of the legal threat. I see you are now blocked from editing, but you can still edit this talkpage. I would suggest you to request an unblock: you can use '{{unblock|your reason here}}'; copy this including the two opening and closing brackets, and explain that this is your only account, etc. etc. in place of the 'your reason here').

I generally agree here with Abd. I think you are a specialist in this area, and have access to information which may be of use for this, and similar organisations. I am afraid this had a bad start, but that does not mean that there is no future.

The initial problem with the University of Atlanta here was the (quite blatant) promotion of the organisation, while notability (an important aspect here) was not established in any way. The article was cleaned of promotion, and we tried to keep it that way, but then we still had the problem of the notability. A. B. and Abd have been working hard to get some information, and editors were asked over and over, but the promotion kept going. The addition of promotional text, peacock wording, etc. really has to stop (or reworded and properly referenced), as does the SEO push: we are NOT here to promote the University of Atlanta (but, indeed, also not to be unnecesseraly negative!). (And that actually also goes for the other links and articles mentioned in the ANI thread, but that is outside of the scope here, I think).

I would strongly suggest at this moment to split the two articles, one for the University of Atlanta, one for Barrington School (or a similar title). The link between the two can then be minimal, stating the short story of the historic 'link' between the two. You can do that, just copy the part about Barrington into a new article. But ... I am afraid that there will be not enough left for the University of Atlanta to be a reasonable article, but that I will leave to you to give some information on that (newspapers, government documentation .. ??), A. B.,Abd, I, and others will keep an eye on it further. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the administrators noticeboard that the legal issue is resolved (perm link). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, I will start the edits on the Article once the block is lifted. Thanks for the advice and training. I believe there is forwarding from Barrington University to University of Atlanta. How do I remove this so that I can move the Barrington Stuff over?? Additionally, not being a "Wiki expert", please bear with me during the changes and guide me so that I will not be out of compliant.--Mistro12 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The best way I think is to say you are going to split the two articles, then you cut the part from Barrington from University of Atlanta, adding a bit of text about that, preferably linking to Barrington University, and you edit the latter pasting in the text, linking it forward to University of Atlanta, and inserting the necessery tags. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you must realize the position in which those who would help you have been placed. It has occurred before that checkuser has found connection where there was none, there are various reasons why this could occur. However, it's highly unlikely. What really surprised me was not so much the linkage with Amithani; after all, Amithani would have solid reason for wanting the UofA article to be positive, had tried extensively (too hard, putting in promotional fluff) to insure this, and I wouldn't expect him to give up as easily as he would appear to have done if he didn't start up a sock puppet account. What surprised me was the Uganda connection. I watched those edits come down. I had intervened to suggest unblacklisting the site as having been caught, perhaps unfairly, in a massive net cast to deal with apparent customers of an SEO. And because, unlike the impression of at least one administrator, UofA itself seemed legitimate. That the Uganda edits appeared started to show me that there was something reprehensible going on. However, I gave it the best construction: UofA had paid an SEO, and the SEO was just continuing to do their job. That's why I contacted UofA directly. To suggest that they call these people off: the result of the continued IP efforts was that additional tools were brought to bear to prevent new links from being added.

Beetstra's suggestion, above, is sound; unfortunately, the sock puppetry results have made it impractical. Basically, Mistro12, you blew it. You overreached with the AfD, bringing a great deal of attention to yourself. Full disclosure, at any point -- and maybe even now -- would have fixed the situation, benefit could have been extracted. Instead, you revealed only a little, and it's vague, and, given the history, the weight of my operating assumptions is now that there is sleazy promotion behind the UofA, and that you have been lying to us. If you would lie to us, if you are Amithani, you would also lie to your students. If Amithani is in the Mithani family, he should realize that he's damaged the school's reputation. It makes me reluctant to do anything to help. Our goal is an encyclopedia, not moral judgment. Nonetheless, my personal priorities go elsewhere. If you want to move further, you would have to contact a respected editor by email, with full disclosure of who you are, with that being verified and checked.

My opinion is that the best way forward for the UofA with respect to our articles would be for Amithani to acknowledge, completely and accurately, his role in this affair, and agree to restrict himself from making any article edits where he has a conflict of interest, but, in those cases, confine himself entirely to advising us on the Talk page of the article. Wikipedia does not punish, but it protects the project. If Amithani agrees to do this, I would support unblock. And it might still be difficult, but not impossible. Another way forward would be for someone else connected with the school to register an account, using their home internet access, disclose the affiliation, and act as a conduit for information from the school, on article talk. At this point, anyone who tries to "help" with the article by pushing for what has been discussed above is likely to be suspect, so, by disclosure, the suspicion would be dispelled. I don't recommend that the same person(s) behind Amithani and your account do this; don't lie. If the one or two of you want to be the active COI editor, do the disclosure, make it full, and it's possible to move forward. --Abd (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I understand your frustration here. I will repeat, I'm not Amithani. Amithani (Mithanis) never used an account to edit Wikipedia. I'm not even sure if Amithani is aware of this account. I understand account Amithani was trying to "promotionalize" information on Wikipedia. This was his SEO, not the Mithani's.(out of ignorance) My sole purpose is to bring accuracy to this article, which at this point I don't think will happen. I was stating facts under the discussion page of the Article, however, it was clear that Wikipedia editors only want it one way, "there way". It is evident by thousands of google blogs that past Wikipedia editors had their share of issues. I overlooked it thinking someone in the Wikipedia community would be rational over information. Yes, I'm a consultant for UOFA and other DETC schools, and was working out of UOFA office for two weeks. When I contract out, I work out of many University offices. I was here to provide facts about the school and allow other editors to make the suggested changes. Nonetheless, nobody wants to here facts, they just want an "entertaining" article. This would make a reader believe that Wikipedia is mode of entertainment media. I will share by thoughts with Mithanis and see how what next steps they want to take based on your suggestions above. I would still love to work with you to correct this article; however, I understand I may have lost this right. Thanks for past support.--Mistro12 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are implying that someone else used the same computer, thus "explaining" the apparently sockpuppetry. Have I got that right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs here, the mixup of the IP addresses behind the accounts seems very strange.

Mistro12, could you set your email address in your preferences (very top of page, 'my preferences', one of the tabs there) to your organisation email address (the consultant address or DETC, not googlemail or hotmail or another free email provider, and not an uofa.edu email address), and then send me an email (via Special:EmailUser/Beetstra). I will respond to that in the next couple of days (or come back here), and expect you to reply again to that (I may include a second email address of the wikimedia foundation, please reply to all in that case). I take that as a confirmation of who you are, and I will unblock you after receiving the second email if all is all right (please do not post your email address on-wiki, I will not publish yours either anywhere public).

I am sorry that this is going to have to go through official channels now. I expect you to mainly discuss after the unblock, but I am sure that Abd, A. B.,I or other will still be willing to help. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mistro12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is the only account I’ve used. Not sure why I’m being linked with someone in Uganda. I have made no edits on the University of Atlanta site except for a deletion request which I discussed on the discussion board. Please remove the "block" so I may contribute to the Wikipedia Community.

Decline reason:

"Not sure why I’m being linked with someone in Uganda." That would be because of this. Checkuser linked this account to two separate IP ranges, only one of which is in Uganda (and, for all we know, an open proxy). — Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

'--Mistro12 (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Per unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org

I have unblocked your account, and reverted your userpage to the pre-checkuser version. As I noted in the email discussion, please refrain from any form of legal threats (they will immediately result in indef. blocks). I hope you will help us split the article as suggested ánd to create a fair article for University of Atlanta (and maybe help in keeping it free of advertising). Please have a read through some of our policies and guidelines as linked from the welcome on top of this page, especially the conflict of interest guideline, and the advertising and spam guideline as that were the main issues where this all started, and the notability guideline on what may be needed for the articles to establish their own right. Note that even parts of the information that was earlier used in an advertising way may have a place and can be used, if it is stated in a neutral way and is reliably referenced (see the reliable sources guideline for a bit more info on that. Of course you can contact me, and others, if you have any questions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Barrington University, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Barrington University was changed by Mistro12 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2009-05-18T20:10:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm working towards spliting the two articles. Thanks, --Mistro12 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Splitting

The splitting of the articles that was suggested above has met major objections, my help on University of Atlanta was very much objected and has been reverted. I am sorry, I will for now also revert your edits to Barrington University, and would suggest that we try to find a solution on Talk:University of Atlanta first. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have created forks in my user space. We can work on them until we, and anyone else who in good faith wants to improve the forked versions, then we can propose the merges and let the community decide. With clear choices to look at and compare, we are likely to get a cleaner decision easier, and if we need to appeal through dispute resolution process, we'll be ready.

Mistro12, Beetstra might tell you that I do have an idea of how to deal with stubborn opposition, and it is not by butting heads, but by taking things step by step, always seeking consensus. I'm recommending that you treat yourself as having a conflict of interest, whether you actually do or not, otherwise you will be vulnerable to various claims of disruption. So with the mainspace articles, don't edit the articles themselves, but confine yourself to suggestions on Talk. You are welcome to edit the articles in my user space, assuming that problems don't develop. Doing this in user space is, then, more flexible, and there can be less flak while it's in process, maybe even none. If every edit gets reverted, it can be hard to make big changes! But, later, when a decision is being made, we will be comparing two versions of the article, which is a lot easier to get people who have not been involved to comment.

The working copies are at User:Abd/Barrington University and User:Abd/University of Atlanta.

Be patient, this could take some time. However, if better sources are found, it could happen quickly. To make the UofA article practically deletion-proof, we need some independent reliable secondary source; DETC is a primary source, though that could be debated. Newspapers are generally secondary source. Listings in directories are typically primary source, they don't mean much. Newspapers and magazine articles are good, the best would be an article that actually covers the U of A, not merely a mention of the U of A as part of a story on something else.

By the way, the bull-in-the-china-shop approach would be to insist on creating and keeping open the Barrington article. Because there is much more source on BU, the argument that UofA should be the main article is weak. However, if you watch me for a while, you'll see that I prefer not to push conflict in people's faces, wherever it's possible to work around opposition. There is usually more than one way to do things and make progress. If we were to confront the editors insisting on keeping the one article as UofA, they could decide to dig in their heels. And then we get more drama and wasted time. In the end, what is important about their objections will be satisfied, I'm sure, that's how I work and consensus is my goal. --Abd (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I commend you for your diplomacy. Thanks for your advice. I will not make any edits, but only make suggestions. I’m hopeful the outcome will be fair. The way you have two separate articles sitting under your user page are good. I have made one minor suggestion. Thanks. --Mistro12 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I should make it clear that you are welcome to edit the copies in my user space, but I highly recommend only adding stuff in two ways: with reliable source, per WP:RS, or adding something you believe can be reliably sourced, but you don't have the source handy, in which case, put in a citation-needed tag, use {{cn}}. When it's time to move the articles back, you would want to be prepared for intense criticism, so that stuff should, before then, be sourced or removed. I did not create these copies to control them, but I will mediate any disputes that might appear in my user space. It's unlikely that I'll find time to work on the articles myself, and, while I'll be watching them, I often miss stuff, my watchlist only covers about a day. So ask on my Talk page if you need some specific help. Beetstra, also, I'm sure, will be helpful, and A.B., as well. Don't mistake criticism for enmity. Do remember to stay away from editing any actual articles around the UofA, or not I nor all the King's men will be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again.

One more piece of advice: stop complaining about biased editors. Just deal with the situation by providing reliable sources, or by civilly and gently correcting misinformation, be generous with Wikipedia and the other editors, they don't have reliable source, so they speculate. We can help you, but piss off enough people, we won't be able to continue. There is a contingent of editors with heavy bias against "diploma mills," which is understandable, but which sometimes rubs off on less sleazy institutions. So take it easy, one step at a time. --Abd (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. -Drawn Some (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This has already been verified by Administrator Dirk. A COI does not exist.--Mistro12 (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually just the opposite has been established. You do have a relationship with the school and you use their computers to post on Wikipedia. But that is not the reason I came to your talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

... Sigh, Drawn Some. Please, Mistro12 does not have a conflict of interest, he does not have a relationship with the school in that sense. So, unless you also want to forbid editors who e.g. go to a university library to edit wikipedia, and edit the page about the university they are in, I ask you firmly to stop. You are one small step away from harassing this editor, and I do not want to see this any further from you, thanks. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pic

The current pic of the University's offices is the outside of the building which also houses Iverson and possibly other businesses and it has been pointed out that it would be better to have pics of the actual offices of the University of Atlanta so next time you stop in could you take some and upload them, please? Perhaps a pic of the outer door showing the sign and then some of the inside with the on-site support staff, the Mithrani brothers or current owners, etc. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And for the ultimate in closeness to the subject, perhaps a picture of himself at the keyboard of their computer, with the U of A article on the screen and the actual U of A computer area in the background. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, the same remark as for Drawn Some goes for you, this is one step away from harassing this editor, and I also urge you to stop this type of remarks immediately. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

2nd my Motion

PLease second my motion, if you need help let me know, go to the top of the art and insert the sencoded code--Supercopone (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry, walk me through--Not sure how to do that. --Mistro12 (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

go to the top of the article and paste

{{Prod-2}}

I hope we can get this done and fixed

I just want the art to be fair and balanced, I feel there is no hope of this occuring and may have to go up the ladder on step and request intervention--Supercopone (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Or just click on my deletion request on the main page of the article , click where it says "delete" at the top of the box. It will open a page and scroll down to where it says "To second a proposed deletion"--Supercopone (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

DONE

Question

Supercopone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mistro12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could you please explain why you, after 6 months of inactivity and not touching the subject of University of Atlanta, return merely hours after a new editor tries to 'clean' the information that earlier other conflict of interest accounts tried to clean, which has been verified by independent editors as being correct, and which inclusion/exclusion you discussed as well. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, lets first set the tone correct. When editors felt there was a conflict of interest from me, I stopped any edits on this article. Now let’s not be conclusionary that others who want to make changes to the article have a conflict of interest. (They may have interest to the facts) The entirety of this article is full of bias remarks from editors. Although I was inactive on the discussion board, I was still active on finding the facts like Supercopone. Now just because other editors use fancy Wikipedia words to try to substantiate their argument, to me that doesn’t prove “other editors as being correct”. That notion is what continues to discredit Wikipedia articles. Through-out the 6 months, I’ve heard the University has been asked many times about the inaccuracy of this article from the education community. Those who have first hand experience, their discontent continues to grow. I can spend another few months writing facts on the University, but why not just make it clear to me and others that Wikipedia does not respect information outside the few select admins, and we would all be happy to about our ways. --Mistro12 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

6 months ago the article was representing the facts. The information was available, and I think that it is still available. Barrington is in the past of the University of Atlanta, that is part of the facts. If you have documentation that can show that those facts are wrong, then please do use those references. And they better be not produced by the school itself. --Dirk Beetstra ^T

C 16:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats facts are available now, dead links or blogs??? Facts which are only available by google search doesn't substantiate facts as being creditable. What facts you want now?? And are you really looking for facts when its clear your set in your way. --Mistro12 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no blogs linked, and that a link can not be linked does not mean that it is not true. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and when you read my first post, a) I asked you a question which you did not answer, and b) I did not say that the current editor has a conflict of interest. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, odd you would say that as a senior Administrator. Few months ago everything was about citing facts, now since the references are not available, it really doesn't matter you still claim it as the truth.

I noticed few days ago when "supercopone" made some editorial changes. I followed it until the discussion was made. --Mistro12 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not odd. If I read 6 months ago the facts, then they don't become untrue if I can't read them now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Supercopone was created in February but didn't edit until a week ago. An interesting coincidence, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should check for the IP of the user .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That would require a sockpuppet investigation. If he/they resume the edit war, it would probably be best to return the discussion to WP:ANI. I'm thinking there was a previous discussion about it there, back in May or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And to be sure, I checked my case-files. It is indeed in that document, it is just not available anymore on internet. I guess the wayback machine will do. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you a question on Talk:University of Atlanta, but I will ask it here as well. May I remind you that I have shown a lot of good faith in you, and therefore I now ask you to consider your next answer. Was the University of Atlanta founded in 1991? Hint: I have adapted University of Atlanta. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now I see where you cite from the fall 2008 page 26 founding date as 1991 and I found on page 6 as the 2006 founding date from the same publication. I will call DETC Monday and find out the correct date and have them update it on their Fall letter. I hope you respect whatever the outcome and my efforts as positive and fact finding. --Mistro12 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AAAH, now we see. You have them change the records?? Very convenient. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

W

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

I have blocked this account. It is now clear that your only interest is in using Wikipedia for advertising only purposes, and it invalidates your proof that you are not a sockpuppet of Amithani (or, at the very least, a meatpuppet). I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WOW, very professional!! When an editor says they will do some actual work on getting the two different dates corrected since there is a conflict within their own document, you find that as advertising? From where i come from, it's called, proving the innocence. Ask your self, do you really think that I can force a change at my convenience to an National accreditor recognized by the US Department of Education. My intent was to find out the why the difference in founding dates within their own article.--Mistro12 (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is just too accidental. I updated the document according to a copy I have on my harddrive, and now you want to ask them to change a document that you earlier said you did not have access to, or that you did not know what it contained. Care to explain? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the fall publication which is publically available on http://www.detc.org/downloads/publications/Fall%202008%20DETC%20News.pdf which you led me to it by your "HINT": references two different dates when you do a search on "university of atlanta. What is the harm in contacting DETC as they our the point of reference in the founding discrepancy to allow them to shed some truth to the actual date weather it would be 91 or 06, it should be uniformed across their own article. --Mistro12 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The reference is still there? I was looking at the one I had on my harddrive .. This document is significantly different.

The only reliable source which is in concordance with many (unreliable) blog and forum posts is changing its texts upon request? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm loosing you at this point. Not sure if we are just running in circles. I would appreciate if you would unblock me so that i can effectively contribute as I have strong opinions on articles that need justice. I've not edited the article which have COI, I think it's unfair to block when I'm voicing my difference. --Mistro12 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am not unblocking you, but you are free to email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or post an {{unblock}} request. I want independent review (and hence, I have also posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked after admitting to get records changed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WOW, not what i expected from a professional who represents Wikipedia. I like how you reworded what was meant to be a positive forward directed note to clarify the argument, but your motive is obviously more than having the truth under the administrators area, but you managed to twist it into fabricated rubbish which you seem to fail to debate over. Whatever the outcome on my end really, I know it will not effect the UOFA article. I will have the proper agency look into the discrepancy, but when you quote mis-information on Wikipedia, the truth by citations from those same agencies will prevail. Good Day! --Mistro12 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will leave it to an independent editor. I told you, I know what was in the document, I know that it is confirmed with independent, though generally unreliable, sources, and I know that when I challenged you you managed to actually find a document (I wonder how, it is not in a Google search ..). I will continue to look for further sources, but I am sure you can guide us to the startup information of the company, I mean, there must be an initial register, is there not? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to provide you with what I can, but unfortunately I've failed to understand what it is exactly you seek. The document I referred to earlier is available on DETC website so maybe I'm missing the boat here. I've already made the attempt on shedding light on the start up information. What kind of register are you looking for, corporate registration??--Mistro12 (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistro12, the reference was gone, and then you plainly said that the data was incorrect. From the old data it is clear that it is true. Now we found the reference again, and the information is verifyable noted in that document. Still you insist that the data, which is in accordance with forum posts (which in itself generally are not reliable sources, though that is dependent on the moderation of the forum), is wrong. To me, it is very striking that one of the accrediting agents of the UofA has for over a year completely wrong data in their records. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey 12, are you going to ask for an unblock or what. I want to ask you some questions if you get a chance. You know anyone I could talk to find some info out about student life? email me threw wiki or I can just post my email for you, hate to see you gone, you had some good info. It looks like Beetsra (I think) made some good edits today. I really hope you come back around!--Supercopone (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you dont asked to be unblocked I will ask for you--Supercopone (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made the request. Not sure what to expect, but I think I'm done debating over the UOFA article. I can provide feedback as needed. --Mistro12 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think if you are unblock you will not have the probs you have been having, I think Beetstra was a little worked up as was I. I would shoot an email over to Fred Talk. Go to my page to get his info. He thinks the article is jacked as well. He might unblock you. I think we need you to come back you had some great info. I have had to bend over backwards and kiss some you know what to get along with others on the page but I think that this article needs some help. If you look at it, it is changing for the better and I have looked towards you as some of my motivation. You seem to have some good ideas as to the direction this article needs to go. I was hoping you would still shoot me an email and let me know what’s going on. I will still try to improve things--Supercopone (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats up with the two U of A's out there now, need some help if you got time, sorry to keep bothering you. Here is the link to there website [uoatl.org] --Super (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your URL doesn't work for me. Is there a typo in it? --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the deal is with the other one. It seems unfinished. My best guess can only be that it was the original start-up as the separate school before transformation into the Online School. But I can tell you that educause doesn't issue .edu domains unless the school is accredited so it maybe the original .org website that was never updated. --Mistro12 (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Supercopone, Since I'm Blocked, I can't email Fred to request a consideration for the unblock. See if you can email him for me. Thanks.

For a review of your unblock request, please move it to its proper place at the bottom of this page.  Sandstein  06:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry its [www.uofatl.org] I found it last week and it had a school history that showed formation date of 2003 which would mean it was in the works before Barrington was bought. It had very little info until the other day now it looks like they opened the doors, Is this part of U of A online? Yes I will get back to Fred for you, Im sure if you repost the Unblock at the bottom of the page it will go threw, you are far to helpful to others on wiki for it not to, heck if they just look at some talk pages they would know. --Super (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Supercopone, I had previously made that argument under the discussion page-- they are wholly separate schools. Barrington and UOFA. Different corporations and different licenses. Barrington was closed down after a teach-out committment while UOFA continued their operations as a new entity. This research was conducted and verified by the accrediting agency, the state licensing boards and the school. Now, your newly found uofatl.org website, this may lead to further discussion. Just my opinion. --Mistro12 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Funnily, Mistro12, the sources say differently. Barrington was renamed to University of Atlanta, and students were told that the name changed. The point is, that Barrington was founded in 1991, the school renamed, so the organisation was still founded in 1991. Yes, they are two different corporations, and they have different licences, but they are connected. You really should be focussing on finding more on UofA itself, find the local news posts, about current operations, find more, and when there is enough then a split into two articles can be considered, where there is only a minimal notice of 'UofA started its operation as Barrington, the rename took place in ...', until then, there is a notable school, and there is enough information to write an article on, but it is of no use to split it (yet). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dirk, point well taken. The only part which needs further clarification is the renaming of the two Universities. From the little I know about "Creditable sources" I'm not sure that blogs represent a fair argument. But, I'm surly open to others opinion on it. If there is official references citing the name change which I've overlooked, then my mistake. If I find more about UOFA, I'll be happy to share it in the talk page. --Mistro12 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The blogs confirm what the more reliable sources say, those all fit together. If the information was only based on forum posts, yeah, you would be right, but I don't call e.g. the Birmingham News (was that the name of the newspaper?) an unreliable source, and also the DETC information is perfectly in line with it. I stand with the point, it would be good if some more news would come about the school itself, so it would be a standalone article, and a split of the Barrington article could be reconsidered (though there will of course still be a mention of it, but then it would be one or two lines, in stead of a whole section with two subsections). It is unfortunate that the part about Barrington is the more notable part, and actually, the whole story is pretty interesting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

ok I talkeed to Fred just send an email here unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org In the subject line just put unblock/ for Fred--Super (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|I feel that my statements have been misinterpreted. I have genuine interest in contributing to articles. I would appreciate a reconsideration. I have not attributed to any changes of articles which are COI. I will discuss them appropriately under the talk page. Thanks}}--Mistro12 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)