Elen, I wonder if you would give me your opinion on what is going on at the Tree shaping article. It seems to me that Blackash, who is co founder of Pooktre, is exhibiting a serious conflict of interest in the way she is editing and (since being banned from editing the article) trying to influence other editors in matters having commercial and personal significance.
This has been a very long running issue to which I came as a result of an RfC and I would be happy to provide diffs if it will help. I have taken it back again to COI/N [1] but Blackash still cannot see any COI. What is your opinion? Do you see a COI? This has been through several attempts at resolution with no success. What is the best way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor with a conflict of interest is normally advised not to edit the article solo, but to ensure that they have consensus on the talkpage prior to any edit (this is the etiquette that Richard Gill was reminded about in the Monty Hall case). I think Blacklash's conflict of interest it clear, I think Blacklash's generally disruptive editing was sufficient to earn her a topic ban from editing in article space, however the discussion at AN seemed to indicate that she could continue to contribute on talkpages even though she has a COI, because that is how the COI policy works. I think WhatamIdoing has the right of it here - the topic ban did not include talk space, and if you want to stop Blacklash editing in talkspace, you will either have to go back to AN or start some other process such as RfAR, and argue that her editing is disruptive, not just COI. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you advice. I am glad the you see a clear COI, which others, including Blackash, do not. This has been going on for years and needs to stop. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in the field of Tree shaping. I few facts Martin left out.
I've always stated I have a potential COI (since I found out years ago about COI)
My edits have never been found with COI
I have been accused of editing with a COI just like Martin has done above with no evidence. This has happened through out the whole talk page.
I am not aware of any admin ever giving me a warring about inappropriate editing.
In the past SilkTork an admin was asked to look into my editing on Tree shaping and he stated no clear COI. There have been two admins (SilkTork is one) aware that I was editing Tree shaping and related articles to which I'm expert in. Neither of these admins have stated I've edited inappropriately.
I have a history of talking about any edit of mine that may be a problem, and being willing to compromise. In the last year or so any edit I wanted to do that was even close to being seen as COI edit, I've gone to the appropriate noticeboard and got a consensus about weather to do the edit or not. Most of the time other editors have agreed with the edit I wanted to do.
This asking for input from other editors is one of the reasons SilkTork gives for wanting my Topic ban (SilkTork listed at ANI for Topic ban), as it is wasting to much of other editors time on what he considers on very minor article. COI was claimed (not by SilkTork) again with no supporting evidence to support my Topic ban at ANI.
Hi Becky. I see from the RfAR page that we are now at 9 for 0 on accepting the case, so I hope to have more conversation about this there. I'll restrict my remarks now to a general statement for now, as discussion of the evidence should take place on the case pages. In general, conflict of interest, or the potential for conflict of interest, is a matter of fact and not an accusation of bad behaviour. We have rules that judges may not try their own sons to prevent the verdict being challenged even if the judge remains unmoved. In your case, the possibility for conflict of interest is clear but is not a criticism of you - you have a definite and entirely legitimate business interest, and that has the potential to lead to challenges of your editing. The question to be decided by the RfAr is whether there actually is a breach of the various Wikipedia editing policies, particularly neutral point of view, what to do if there is, and indeed, what to do if it is demonstrated that there is not. The behaviour of all parties will be examined. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being shouted at, or being told "let me make this perfectly clear," and I'd appreciate in future if you'd reconsider your tone toward me and other editors. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, there is absolutely no valid reason for you to stop being the drafting arbitrator, no matter what some of the commenters might be saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I...okay? I have had a multitude of users state that my concern was legitimate and I have already apologized and acknowledged that my wording was poor and clarified that I meant no disrespect to anyone. You can read the Wikiquette discussion for proof of that. So, what exactly do I need to do now, since i've been added to the case? I certainly can't comment on much related to Noleander, since this case had gone far beyond the specific incident that was raised at ANI. SilverserenC15:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you want to do is to write a statement that refers to your behaviour and responds to LHvU's statement. Use diffs to show where you have already responded to concerns etc. You don't need to say anything about Noleander unless you want to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the original deadline set for submission of evidence was today, but that's unfair to you. You need the chance to get a statement together - say by close of play on Friday, to give you a chance to do that and also respond in the workshop if you want to do that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that for the evidence page, I just need to make my own evidence section. It's a lot like the longer RfC's. But what exactly do I need to do for the Workshop page and what would I be responding to there? SilverserenC18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The links for where you are mentioned on the workshop page are up above. You are able to comment in the 'comments by parties' section if you feel it would help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - I'm going to be off air for the next few days due to a family illness. If you have any other questions, the clerks or the other Arbs will be able to help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen: A week ago, I asked about extending the deadline for evidence in the Noleander arbitration case, but I was able to find some time today to submit my final evidence. So, the original deadline of 6 April is fine, and I no longer need an extension. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You closed the MfD for Portal:Cartoon Network as speedy deletion, and it still isn't deleted. I checked the deletion log of Portal:Cartoon Network, it said that you deleted it but I can still see it. On the log, it has nothing about restoring. How can I still see the portal? I am not a sysop or Researcher. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs20:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! Please add to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger brand new details about once hidden evil deeds of this NS extremist. He perhaps after drinking some beer in his NS hideout, finally revealed his true extremist NS intentions:
Hi, greetings! Could you tell me where I exactly removed sourced information of birth place, here the difference of the versions: [5]. Pensionero16:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I'm not clear on the procedure that pertains to this vandalism from an educational institution IP. ("Educational" perhaps in quotation marks.) I've left warnings, but have just left a dire one I have no power to carry out. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And someone's changed my dire warning, as if this were garden-variety "hi joe" vandalism. It isn't. It's racially offensive. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind, someone's addressed this (and I see also that I had previewed but not posted my second warning, which was the dire one, before someone else left the inappropriately mild warning). I really must get up to speed on procedure if I'm going to be such a vigilante. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting here as Thumperward obviously wants to close that discussion off at ani. I don't think you're right that the judges are simply misguided or perhaps drunk as you suggest. Eady and one or two others see themselves as carrying out what the Human Rights legislation lays down. They have mentioned specific points, for example protecting young children from the harmful effects of tabloid coverage. I think the real problem arises from the fact that companies being legal personalities, they have extended these protections to some really grotesque cases like Trafigura. It isn't clear to me anyway why the tabloids need a right to print prurient details of people's sex lives because they are famous actors or footballers. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problems with an injunction banning the News of the World from printing scandal. The problems are the attempt to extend the injunction beyond the borders of UK jurisdiction, and the attempt to extend it beyond the press - the thing that has finally got Parliament off its arse is that at least one of these injunctions would theoretically prevent someone from talking to their MP about the subject, which is a usurpation of parliamentary privilege not seen since the days of Old Noll. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the latter certainly appears to be a breach of the traditional rights and also of Magna Carta - yet according to a judge interviewed on R4 the other night, it is precisely what Parliament has decreed via acceptance of the HRA because it supercedes previous law on the subject. In other words, parliament needs to pass fresh legislation stipulating the limits of privacy. Parliamentary privilege is anyway rather shaky legally as we've seen in numerous cases over the last few years - not least that ghastly action of the previous Home Secretary sending police round to Damian Green's office to take away his files on the most spurious grounds. I have come to doubt there is anything much in our traditional "constitution" - certainly not much to defend our so-called "democracy". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will not get disagreement from this quarter as to the last part. Nothing short of the grave suspicion of actual High Treason would warrant that kind of incursion, and as far as I can see, Mr Green's offence was only to be behaving like a politician. As to the rest, the HRA was not intended to supercede a better law. S4 of the HRA makes it fairly clear that it is not the role of the courts to override or set aside primary legislation, preventing someone from communicating a matter with their MP is a breach of Article 11, and Article 8 does not say It is required that there shall be extensive interference by a public authority with the exercise of other rights in support of persons claiming to be exercising this right. I think what we are seeing is an attempt by a group of judges to change the law from their side. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, Mrs. Shonen, Baby Tex is only just now beginning to babble. His Finding of Facts may be a little garbled if he were to be on ArbCom. 'Course that might be an improvement over most FoFs put forth by the current ArbCom! ;-) Tex (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. I was inactive for Noleander, stayed inactive for AE (mostly because I hadn't been around to keep up with the arguments, of which I gather there were several). I should be active from this point fwd, as I'm drafting on tree shaping. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeCausa pointed that someone was an admin, I guess he meant you. Before I brought this issue to the AN/I page, I read over what it says at the top, and I looked to see if it was the most appropriate venue. It seemed to be the right place. I brought this issue with the hope of finding a thoughtful and considerate and gentle admin who would work with the editors at the Mexican-American War article to resolve their issue.
The top of the AN/I page has this warning: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion"
The debate at the Mexican-American War article has been going on for months. My hope was to find solutions, not find people who were going to nitpick and fight about unrelated discussions. I don't have a perfect solution, but I am *trying*. I feel like so many of the editors in the AN/I right now are simply ready to fight and say how lame this is, rather than be encouraging and supportive. I'm at AN/I to specifically ask for help. Now, I want to say, I agree that we don't get to control what others will do or say, but given how touchy the situation has been at times, I was hoping for some degree of civility at AN/I. I feel like someone has just ripped the rug out from under me.
My request to you is very simple. Will you please close the AN/I thread? It has become a massive distraction. Thank you, regardless of what you decide. Yours, Avanu (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I asked for some advice from Salvio about the length of my evidence section at Tree shaping arbitration evidence page Which he give here and I've now done. I'm contacting you because I next read a new guideline and it states I should have contacted you first about the length of my evidence section. I seem to have done things the wrong way round sorry, I thought I should let you know what was happening. Blackashhave a chat02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At what point do you think his actions have/will cross-over from being good intentioned but misguided efforts to help, into being good intentioned but ultimately disruptive attempts to help? In other words, do you think WP:NOTTHERAPY or WP:COMPETENCE have begun to apply here? It seems like the message about not disrupting multiple people's talk pages simply isn't getting through. Furthermore, he has recently (or maybe it's been a while) been creating categories linking a variety of different ethnic and national groups that are not populated and also unlikely to be populated (such as Category:American people of Peruvian-Jewish descent and Category:Fictional Saint Lucian people. Its obviously always a touchy issue when we consider whether or not someone's mental condition makes them capable of contributing productively to Wikipedia, and I'm sure that not just I but most editors would prefer to find some way to get through to him about how to work here and interact with other editors. Any thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conundrum, isn't it. The big problem was when she (I think they are female, but not 100% sure on that) was creating copyvios, now she's just moved into the 'needing more support than an editor reasonably ought to need' category. I'm not sure how much they contribute that's productive, but they don't do anything that's really disruptive, so it is hard to know what to do for the best. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite the pickle...I suppose things will keep stumbling along as is until someone at the Help Desk (those appear to be the editors Neptunekh2 interacts with most) gets fed up with the issue and seeks out administrative recourse. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Elen, I don't know where to go so I've come to you, this editor is basically a huge drain on resources and creates prolific amounts of rubbish, for me this is basically vandalism as she takes no heed of any messages or guidelines, she constantly asks questions about including information, when it has been pointed out numerous times that iMDB etc. are not reliable sources and also has an obsession with classifying and creating categories that do not take into account WP:OVERCAT.
Honestly, take a look at the contributions, apart from creating one-sentence articles about stuff that is probably not going to meet the notability guidelines and then asking on the desks for someone to "clean them up", or obsessively categorizing people into categories in which they probably don't belong, she also specializes in creating completely unnecessary categories that are either duplicates or have no chance of passing a CSD request (two that I recently nominated have gone).
Examples:
Okay, >>I'm fed up now, do you realize we are talking about a few days' edits? This is really disruptive, I am fairly new here and have seen lots of stuff that needs fixing but allowing a user like this to prolifically add content that is almost immediately a candidate for deletion is suicide!
Should I just ignore it and patrol other more useful stuff? What's the point? Wikipedia will drown in a pile of its own inconsistencies if we allow this.
The person has been repeatedly pointed to guidelines that explain notability, reliable sources, overcategorization etc. but she seems to feel that Wikipedia should reflect her own personal hobbies and interests to the exclusion of all others and obsesses about trivia and fictional characters that 99.9% of all wombats couldn't care less about.
So, something needs to be done, even if a permanent ban is in order, I'm sorry but I do not wish to waste my time editing a collective project if people are allowed to come and trample all over the good work done by many in respect of consensus, whilst permanently ignoring all attempts to communicate with them, through wilful volition or incapacity.
My, you have been busy, thanks. Well, I hope the user takes some heed of what you posted, for me the main problem is their prolific enthusiasm without taking on board any of the category creation criteria for example. Yes, I did come across Looty Pijamini too, but if the user creates one useful page for ten or so that are going to be deleted, then the ratio is not very helpful. I do hope this person takes on board at least some of what you are suggesting. CaptainScreeboParley!16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just saw that too, just for fun went to check her contribs and had to laugh at all the wierd questions she posts all over the place, multiple times to the annoyance of other editors, apparently. Really does not seem to want to take on board that Wikipedia is not Facebook or some such thing. :-( and it was so well written, friendly and so on. If you keep an eye on her tomorrow, I will deal with the categories that I listed above and propose most for SD. CaptainScreeboParley!21:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, saw you were over at Neptune's talk page again but this time getting stroppy. For me the major problems with this user are: obsession with trivia (in general about TV shows, manga charcters and so on); refusal to heed any wiki policies regarding notability, reliable sources and so on; prolific editing where she will make minor changes (like adding a cat) to 30-odd articles in one night; ridiculousness or unsuitabality of said categorization; and repeated creation of trivial intersection categories.
An example of the latter: Neptune comes across the article about 30 Minutes or Less and sees the Category:American criminal comedy films, ah but in the lede it says that the film is American, German and Canadian produced, so what do we get? Two new categories for Canadian and German criminal comedy films which she then tags the film article with. I have removed them and proposed a SD.
Otherwise adding this as an external link to the Cordelia Chase article because it has the supposed date of birth of the character. Go take a look, it's just a fansite full of trivia, so I removed it as its place is not in EL. I did reply on the talk page to try help ease her confusion but you know the old head and brick wall thing? CaptainScreeboParley!01:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think we just got an answer, and not a good one, at the bottom of the page from Neptunekh2. There is absolutely no way to consider Elen's very kind message a personal attack, and her thinking it is seriously undermines the likelihood of her success here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the talkpage, but it's looking more like a content dispute from here. You are welcome to file an Sockpuppet investigation about RaviC and the IP - if they are the same person, Ravic is using the IP to avoid the appearance of edit warring, but I'm not sure they are the same person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hopeful it might be unstuck, but we'll see. As I explained to Bish, I blocked Gold Hat with the intention of trying to stop you digging yourself in deeper - although I wouldn't say it worked particularly well as a tactic :( --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, having just seen you editing Anna's sandbox, I would appreciate your comment about this statement by an admin. I am wondering whether he is aware of just how much of a problem there is here, and how subtle some of the issues are (eg: articles being assembled with multiple copyvios etc).
As I see it, someone has to grasp this nettle because there are hundreds of the things lying around, numerous people (including other admins) have passed comment on the problems that lie in them and the unfortunate contributor has both been blocked for copyvio in the past and is now subject to a block on creating new articles in mainspace. I am not sure how familiar you are with the recent goings-on, but the very fact that you have made a couple of notes on the sandbox page + fixed a few of the problematic situations raised by myself and others, suggests that you may have more of an understanding than perhaps Anthony Bradbury does. Is he misguided? Or are those of us who have been trying to sort out the problem the misguided ones? Oh, and it is perfectly ok if you would rather not respond. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the purpose of the sandbox is to prevent harsh decisions being made by individuals. There has to be some basic consensus before things are done. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your thoughts. I'll read through the CCI process properly later, but has struck me immediately is "if you have an on-going dispute with another editor, you should avoid filing a CCI case against that editor, and seek larger input at an appropriate forum". The contributor considers both myself and Anna to be not neutral, although (as I have said at the AN/I discussion) his definition of a neutral editor seems generally to be "someone who agrees with me". I will have a think. There is an ongoing AN/I report for the copyvios, but not a lot of input on it. It is a spin-off from another recent AN/I discussion. Anthony Bradbury may have missed these, and also the voluminous recent comments from a wide range of editors listed on the contributor's talk page until earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there will be an issue with you filing a CCI. You've got input from others (including myself and Anthony Bradbury (see below)) that confirms the copyvios. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, thank you for your input. I have looked at the contributions of the editor in question, and I fully appreciate thatb he is a problem, and I have told him so. I have, and had, no wish to upset anyone; I am aware that you have had some recent input here. I am also somewhat aware of the difficulties which can be encountered in tracking copyvios; we are both fairly experienced admins. My point was really just that there is a short way of dealing with them, or a roundabout one; and I am not certain that listing and discussing in a sandbox page is the ideal way to go about it. But I could be wrong. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it is better to use the proper process. Sitush has raised above a concern of being seen as in dispute with the editor, even so it would be better if he or Anna file a CCI. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orlady here; full-protection, a fairly serious position when we're talking about an encyclopedia anyone can edit, is only to be taken out as a last (reasonable) resort. Since both participants to the dispute are now blocked, is there any reason for the protection to be necessary? Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - offline for a few hours. I left a note on the talkpage when I put it on to say that any admin could turn it off as soon as the various editors had settled their differences. At a cursory glance, I thought Bms4880 (talk·contribs) was also adding weird things (apologies - obviously you weren't). No problems with Orlady turning it off if it was overkill. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news. This is a fork of a long-running WP:OWN issue regarding one of the editors. I'm not sure how he continues to do what he does but it has been raised umpteen times, on umpteen forums. The sysop editor has taken the position of defending the project against the perceived ownership. Both blocks seem to me to be correct, including the relative weighting thereof. However, the owning editor's block is unlikely to change his ways, if past blocks are anything to go by, but fully protecting the article for a few days is also not likely to make a difference to the root cause of the problem. Honestly, this entire farrago (in its bigger scale) needs some serious community action. It has been discussed to death but with little apparent effect. Do nothing and it will just run and run.
I should state for the record that I have in the past voiced my own arguments against the non-sysop's actions, and in the last week or so have reverted one of his edits on grounds that were effectively WP:OWN. As I understand it, even other people in the relevant project have pretty much given up hope of resolving this mess. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
leave me Alone ok? I have a medical issue. If you don't leave me alone, I will consider what you're doing a personal attack! Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to help you understand how to edit Wikipedia, because I know you have a medical issue that is causing problems. I keep telling you things because you don't seem to be able to work them out for yourself. If you carry on the way you are doing, other people will make a complaint about you at the admin noticeboard and you will be blocked, because some of what you are doing is sufficiently disruptive to warrant blocking. In particular, creating dud categories, and persistently adding dud categories to articles, is disruptive, and it directly affects the encyclopaedia. I cannot just let you go on being disruptive. If you ask me to "leave you alone", I will ask another admin to take over, but they will just say the same thing, and may be much less sympathetic.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You commented in the last thread at AN/I that concerned user Terra Novus, who signs himself as "Novus Orator". Partly at my initiative, a new thread has been opened there that I consider as simply a continuation of the previous one. Because I consider it so, I've thought it proper to contact each administrator who took part in that last discussion, to disclose the fact. I believe this is an allowed notification for that reason. If you'd like to reply to me concerning this message you can do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Thank you, – OhioStandard (talk)17:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Could you please clarify who you meant by "impatient admins who won't wait for a community discussion to finish" ? I don't see who that could refer to. Cenarium (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a general armwaving kind of statement at this point - Scott Macdonald seemed to want everyone else to stop while there was a discussion, but equally it appears he was still doing stuff while the discussion was going on. If it goes to a case, then I'd want to sort out to my own satisfaction what exactly happened.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here and then see here. I think you will see the problem. My inclination is to take this to ANI as a competence issue, but I'll let you have a run at it first if you think you can get anywhere. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neptunekh means well, but it is a little like being 'helped' by your toddler to make cupcakes :( I've made an attempt to explain what the problem is on her talkpage. If you don't think that's enough, you must do as you see fit (and I think you'll probably get support from a number of other editors). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Should Alexandra Powers go under the category Category:American_atheists because it says in her personal life: "Powers does not adhere to any religion"? 2. Why was the Category:Wikipedians_of_British_descent deleted? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. As far as I can tell, because the category is used for people who make formal statements about why there definitively is no god. People who tried chanting, wearing red bracelets, reading tarot etc but it didn't do it for them, don't go in that category. Don't try creating Category:People for whom God didn't cut it though.
(talk page stalker) Elen doesn't want you to leave, just to find a mentor. I'd be more than happy to work with you, as I think you have a lot to offer and I think our personalities would mesh pretty well (I too have a penchant for arcane topics). It'd be helpful if you could just leave a short note in the section at ANI so people will know you're on board. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and off we go. Pretty much straight in there and arguing against policy. WP:SYNTHESIS, on this occasion, in two different sections. I will stay calm but I'm not going to be able to convince him on my own.
Knowledge of the subject matter is irrelevant to any comment about policy & guidelines, so if you have the time and inclination then your thoughts (for or against, no matter) would be appreciated. I'm really sorry that you have got dragged into this but we need an admin or two here otherwise it is likely to get out of hand again. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, no. You're an intelligent girl (I can say this, I'm definitely old enough to be your mother), you can learn a bit more about editing articles. Ask your mentor how YOU can clean the article up.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, could you please point me to the discussion regarding the so-called "courtesy blanking" of pages relating to Peter Damian? I find it rather surprising that we are wiping out pertinent notices with regard to a banned, known problem user. Thank you in advance. --Ckatzchatspy08:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a discussion with the Arbitration committee offwiki and also at User talk:Coren (where yes I know he is editing through an IP). The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Wikipedia - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim. There is I feel in any case not really a lot of point in endlessly tagging IPs (which change) and socks with a handful of edits. I have certainly seen in other cases that after a certain point it just draws more attention to the socking and its better to ignore it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak to what ArbCom agreed to, I don't agree with your statement about not tagging at least the registered socks. However, we'll see if PD can stay away. FYI, though, you might need to add a different rationale to the speedy for the IP pages as U2 doesn't appear to cover IPs who have edited. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy04:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was the wrong CSD code all round, but I figgered I'd stick with the same wrong one. There's two schools of thought on the socks, so I understand what you are saying. Hopefully it will not be an issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, I've sent you an email. Sorry to bug you but I feel this issue could do with an Arb's eye being cast over it--Caililtalk23:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackashhave a chat08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bolloques - dodgy categories [10] again! bad categorization again! spamming the helpdesks again! [11] and now copyvio again! I think it's probably time for the block again! :( --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, had to go make dinner for my family yesterday and never got back to this. In fairness to The Blade of the Northern Lights, I've dropped him a note on his talkpage. I don't get the impression this mentoring actually worked - I'm seeing no sign that Neptune is actually talking to him (as opposed to ordering him to fix articles for her) - but I think he deserves the chance to respond. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have added a comment at Blade's tp, unfortunately Neptune seems to be ignoring whatever Blade has been telling her and insists on creating articles and categories that do not deserve to exist, then asking (ordering) Blade to "clean them up". I don't know how long the Wikipedia tether is but I think the end is in sight! CaptainScreeboParley!17:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped a note at her talkpage; I've told her that she's on thin ice now, so she needs to stop creating articles altogether and prove to me she can add sourced material to an article; my userspace draft will be her training ground. I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but if this doesn't work I don't think we have much of a choice. It's always a crapshoot with our kind; I was kinda hoping for a MisterWiki ending instead of Angie Y, but people have to help themselves too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you doing? Telling lies about Sydney Bluegum..
You have added to the lying that has gone during the tree shaping arbitration.
you stated that I was topic banned and I wasn't.
you completly confused the diff re the chainsaw comment and didn't bother to reply or correct it.
You admitted that you had not read all the evidence which was your role in the arbitration.
You have been told these points and have not done a thing about it.
You have not looked into the behaviour of other editors.
I would say that you have been slack to the max in your role and editors should take note of your sloppy role. If you could not do the job properly you should have stood aside and perhaps a more competent editor might have done the right thing and at least read the evidence. I am completely disappointed in you and others admins on the arbitration.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
That didn't take too long, [14], block away, hammer the IP down for awhile too [15], this is a very static IP so don't have any qualms about blocking it for 6 months either.--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a range block in order here, or we may just go ahead and semi protect Samuel H. Kim and Ric Jackman (their new player) along with Anyang Halla and Brock Radunske. He only seems interested in promotion on the foreign non-korean player's articles. As the season approaches they'll be generating more press releases and articles and that only increases how much he wants to try and jam those in everywhere.--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Could you find a reliable source for PornstarChanel_Preston's heritage or ancestry and list it in her article? 2. Could you also find a source saying that actor John_Cho has duel American and Korean nationality since he is Korean-born? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this and having no sense of humour whatsoever I am deeply offended. I think this remark should be escalated beyond all sense or reason. We need to cease editing Wikipedia in any sensible manner and proceed to sped our time accusing each other of harassment, stalking and other malfeasance. This should culminate in a duel, with our minds (the only weapon available) at dawn (25 July, sorry but we have 24 hour sunlight right now and that is the first dawn) on ANI. Hang on a minute! I just remembered I don't have a mind so the duel is out and I'm far to lazy to be doing all that other stuff. I'm going to go back to teaching my granddaughter British slang while her parents are not about. That'll teach them to get me for a baby sitter. By the way, Neptunekh2 has added some good articles such as Joseph Idlout, which should have been created a long time ago. Cheers from the back of beyond. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Let us challenge each other at WQA, ANI, ITV, VCR, RPM, MP3, 3G and GO. Unfortunately, Neptune also has some need of a babysitter, but she means well and does create interesting stubs. As one who hails from the centre of the known universe, Nunavut is definitely the back of beyond. Just tell your granddaughter not to get her knickers in a twist over it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I might have guessed. So that means you talk with a very funny accent, eat pakin, scuffler and dock pudding and think that Nottinghamshire stole Robin Hood. But the beer is way better there than here. Ah, Yorkshire isn't that bad. My parents have lived there for several years and we spent several weeks at Wansford, East Riding of Yorkshire and North Frodingham. We all agreed that staying in small places like that without transport would make you more isolated than living down here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of this?: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive."
You apparently believe alot in strict policy enforcement, yet you violate WP behavior guide like above! I will complain about you as time permits. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I don't appreciate the name-calling. I think it is very rude. You unnecessarily exacerbate. Who the H do you think you are? Because you are an Admin, do you think you can get by w/ *anything*? Tell me about it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. You can see what you called me. Read what you wrote. It's condescending and baiting. And now you've repeated it on Polgar Talk. I find you immensely rude. (Can you please get lost? Thank you so much!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You know (I believe) that I think your warning was correct; you know that I had no problems with what you posted on my talk page. In the interest of seeing if there is a way to salvage the relationship between Wikipedia and Ihardlythinkso, however, I think that for now it might be best if you didn't respond to xyr on my talk page. Maybe it will be possible to show the user both that we really meant well, and that xyr behavior will need to be a tad more moderate in order to work well within our collaborative editing environment. And, even better, maybe I can learn some other way of interacting that might have made this calmer from the beginning... Qwyrxian (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if nothing else, I have just learned a wonderful new UK phrase. "A hiding to nothing"--I had to look that one up...maybe I'll try to introduce it into Japanese-English! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you dealt with this issue I thought it best to inform you of edits to his talk page. Attitude is still bad in my opinion, still attempting to refute community consensus and policies WP:crystal. From the attitude it seams like he thinks everyone is incorrect but him. Any way I post below a link to his talk page below. I have also posted same link to admin notice board discussion from yesterday. I hope you can appreciate my reasons for informing you. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
A user called Christanandjericho just tried to remove the above content from starcade's page but I reverted that because I thought you should see what starcade has wrote. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen of the Roads, in answer to your question on the Arbitration page, I have provided links in the section describing steps taken to resolve the dispute where on three separate occasions the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was used to get third party comment. I make reference to the results of these third party inputs in the body of my statement (Statement 1). Minphie (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all content on Sacred texts is PD (see http://www.sacred-texts.com/cnote.htm) - this includes the Rothery source. So no, there's no copyright infringement, but I agree with every single other thing you said. I did not tell Neptune to copypasta the content of User:Neptunekh2/Dlasta into the list article - I thought she could put a line each about Dlasta, Libussa and Valasca. But we are making progress of an odd kind. There's a sort of dialogue now going on. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen. Thanks for getting back to me. You're right that I didn't catch that but it's still copied without attribution and so constitutes plagiarism. I should have been more careful and just did not check the date but the problem is that when there are constant problems as seen here, the tolerance level goes down.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily put the page back no problems. I don't think this guy is a vandal, I think he is a junior teen who is somewhat obsessed with Hannah Montana, and who thinks he is helping (eg adding the extra pictures) when in reality he is not. If you try talking on his talkpage and explaining, it may help. If he takes no notice, then I'll quite happily take further admin action. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I like that appproach. I do think he's trying to help - if you look at his last two edits he's right, it is Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus, not Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus, as it's two albums packaged together, not a series/episode construction like Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back . But he's likely to get into trouble for edit warring over it (as I suspect is the other guy), as his clue level is not high where Wikipedia rules are concerned.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ending-starts a good friend of mine I'll talk to him. He's pretty good at things but he makes mistakes too. I'll talk to him. And thank you I figured it's better then say cussing the guy out you know? JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 00:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Step 1 of the DRV process is to ask the admin nicely to restore the page.
Could you please restore User:Surturz/AdminWatch? It does the admins no credit to so quickly delete a page like this. You guys can zap it in a second, but as an non-admin I have all these tedious processes to go through to defend the page. The ANI I raised is barely started and now I need to do a DRV. Could you please restore the page, or at least let me restore the "rationale" part, so that non-admins know what we are talking about? How can I build consensus for a check against admin power if the admins make it impossible for non-admins to know what is going on? --Surturz (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking nicely. However, I decline. The community has previously supported deletion of 'shit lists' of this kind. If you want to raise concerns about an admin, the correct approach is a request for comment on the admin. If others share your concerns, the Arbitration Committee will look at the case, and has the power to remove admin tools. If you want to change the policies or powers that admins have, start gathering consensus. Discuss it at WP:ADMIN or WP:Village pump#policy - see if others support your views. If you just don't like admins in general, then you need to get elected as God-king and get them done away with. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to gather consensus. A bit hard when you can't put together a list of reasons for change. For the purpose of the DRV discussion, I am going to restore the image, caption, and rationale sections, but remove the list of admins. This will allow non-admins to effectively involve themselves in the DRV. I hope this is okay with you. --Surturz (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would do far better to put together a list of reasons for change generically, and then link them to examples, rather than listing them by admin, which is what causes it to be deleted as a shitlist. For example 'admins are able to speedily delete articles without discussion', you could then link to these deletions as examples of what you see as a proble. That way, it doesn't look as if you are targeting individual admins. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Surturz.2FAdminWatch. (That was me formally informing Elen of the DRV, as I am required to do). That curly brace template thing is pretty mysterious I think I screwed it up.
Why did you not previously advise me to either mark it as a rfc-in-progress, or to reorganise the article by admin action rather than admin name? I would have been happy to do either of these, and you could have done that strikethrough thing with the revisions you didn't like. A few talkpage comments is all it would have taken. Instead, here I am, several hours of lodging ANIs and DRVs later, and even more convinced that admin powers need curbing. --Surturz (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templates do for me as well :) I did tell you pretty much at the same time as deleting it, or at least as soon as I figured out what you were trying to achieve, but I'll be honest, I'm not sure if all admins would do that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I need an uninvolved administrator to check this thread (which links to a couple of other discussions related to the subject as well) and to make a close at WP:AN. There is a clear consensus for a topic ban for MakeSense64 but the thread nearly vanished to the archives unattended, and I want to make sure it gets closed and enacted per consensus and not slip through the cracks. CycloneGU (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thanks for enacting that ban. I think it will help the effort to develop and substantiate the content of those pages significantly. One question - the proposal was for MakeSense64 to be banned from astrology and astronomy pages (and their discussion pages) because he has caused a lot of his disruption in arguments relating to star and constellation pages - arguing that even clarification of astronomical principles on subjects such as the zodiac pushes pseudoscience on WP (or other equally disruptive arguments). I went to the NPOV noticeboard for advice on one issue, and they were totally supportative, but could not stop him from continuing to make disruptive arguments and edits. So to clarify, does the phrase "topic banned from the subject of Astrology, widely construed, and including all project spaces for a period of six months" include what he refers to as 'astronomy pages' too?. I would also like to know if it's possible to have this editor's account history checked for sock-puppetry, since the suggestion has been made by more than one editor that its unlikely this user-account is as new as its history suggests it to be. Could you advise me a little on how that request can be handled? Thank you again. ZacΔ talk13:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Astrology widely construed should cover it - if he's making astronomy related edits (say information about binary star systems) he's fine, but his edits at eg Algol were on astrology, not astronomy. If you think he's socking, start a Sockpuppet investigation - there are several blocked/banned users he could be, but you'll need to see if he edits like any of them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one actually, but I'll leave that for today and come back to it when I'm less pressed for time. Thanks for that clarification. The way he insists that astrology-related content is actually astronomy-related content, and astronomy-related content is actually astrology-related content, I'm a little worried that there might be future problems on those pages. But hopefully not - I'll keep a record of this discussion, just in case. Regards and thanks again, 13:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm equally worried, but unless something appears at AN/I (or unless Zac informs me about a potential sock to look at to analyze), my involvement with this case is now at an end. It was clear to me from what I saw that MakeSense64 was editing disruptively even where I entered the dispute a month and a half in at AN/I, so I feel this was a good case here. Thank you for doing the close Elen, I'll mark the new AN/I thread resolved. CycloneGU (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to go through the categories Neptunekh2 created, and I'm wondering if we can stretch G5 a bit. I know she was never formally banned from creating categories, but both of us told her explicitly not to. It seems a waste of time to send some of them to CfD; I'll compile a list of what's worth saving and what isn't, and I'm thinking we can probably be done with it a bit more quickly if someone just zaps them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any that she made after the warning can go unless they are populated, same with any that duplicate a cat that was previously CfD'd, and anything unpopulated. Let me know what you find out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi there, I am cracking up, oh dear, she has been busy hasn't she, where is Category:Central African mice of Jamaican descent. To be honest, if she has created a category to house one person, as is often the case, and the intersection is ridiculous or the chances of it ever being populated are very low, I would empty the category and then CSD it. This is what I have done in the past, saves time and no one is complaining. CaptainScreeboParley!17:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've started. If no-one else is using it and it has only one entry I'll just delete them. Two of the films about categories need renames (Film about cows should be films about cows) but the categories are OK I think. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mooo! yes film about bears would, by definiton, only ever have one film in it ;-) Have to pop out to the shops but will do some cat emptying later for the sake of Blade's sanity. CaptainScreeboParley!17:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, in this marathon task of category vetting, I came across the wierd and wonderful: Colin Powell catted as "Jamaican of Scottish descent", which i promptly removed as he is an "American of Jamaican desent with Scottish ancestry" (damn should have created the cat!) Btw, this is not Neptune's work :)
But I did come across this, William_Davidson_(conspirator), from which I removed all the wierd and dodgy categories (none attested to in bio). Problem is it appears to be a major copyvio of this website, [18], you seem to know your way round the subject, an opinion? Oh and it's totally unreffed, fairly obvious as 95% of it seems to be lifted from the previously mentioned site. CaptainScreeboParley!20:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK in this case, it's not a copyvio. Spartacus produces materials which are intended to be used to produce other educational material. I can't find a TOR, but all the material is pd. Their specialism is providing big chunks of primary source material that might otherwise be hard to track down.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for checking (what is TOR btw?) I know pd is public domain from following the conversation about the xyz warrior queen where Neptune took the material from Sacred Sources, oh, would TOR be terms of release/reproduction by any chance? Cheers. CaptainScreeboParley!19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in this case that 'crazy' referred to 'categories' as in 'creator of crazy categories', rather than a crazy user. I believe Captain Screebo, like me, actually became quite fond of Neptune, who seems a pleasant individual although her learning difficulty made editing problematic. However, same comment as made to Bobthefish below does apply - referring to people's mental health is a very touchy subject, and although civility is cultural, if someone says they are offended one should normally take it at face value that they are offended. Do I take it there is history between you - the response does not seem to be of a kind one would make to a stranger.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how perceptive Elen, this user is in fact shadowing me, [19] for example, if you check your tp history they were already here earlier but reverted themselves. I have blanked two sections on my tp, [20] and [21], as they are obviously "spoiling for a fight" and I don't really know what to do but seeing as they have come here "to tell tales", maybe you could weigh in and have a word or at least give your opinion.
Basically, a lot of this is to do with "Jewish ethno-tagging" as AndyTheGrump (talk·contribs) calls it, and Bus Stop does not seem to be happy that Wikipedia's cat and blp policies do not follow those of the Jewish Chronicle or whatever. Quite frankly, I spend about 5% of my time on BLPs or the BLPN, but as some people insist on warring over the interpretation of the English language and repeating the same arguments ad infinitum it probably takes up 25% of my time (and is, quite frankly, boring).
As you correctly state above, "'crazy' referred to 'categories' as in 'creator of crazy categories', rather than a crazy user", as can be seen here at 2011_August_6#Category:Swiss_voice_actors, I really don't know what to say, yes I think all concerned (well at least you, me and Errant) were fond of her even if we started to pull our hair out in desperation at the end and everybody was rooting for her to 'click'. So I find it doubly obnoxious to be hounded by someone who seems to spend the majority of their time on the blp board or at egrs, coming to say I'm insulting editors to whom I have consecrated a lot of time and energy, without really knowing anyhting about the subject or taking the slightest interest (and Bus Stop, per your previous tp comment, the fact that you appeared once at an ANi discussion concerning Neptune does not mean that you show an interest in the subject, it probably means that you have been following my edits since at least then, so back off and find something useful to do).
Elen of the Roads—you're right. You are after all assuming good faith. "Civility is cultural", it is true. But wouldn't we be responsible for minimizing the possibility of misinterpretation of the things we post? And wouldn't we be responsible for setting good examples for others, such as newcomers, to follow? Would it be so boring if someone just stuck to the purpose of a given page or place on Wikipedia? This called for an explanation for the removal of the only two biographical entries from a Category. Was there a need to mention the person who created that Category? Neptunekh2 may never see that comment so Neptunekh2 may never have a chance to respond. People can have fun on Wikipedia. But such a comment should be where Neptunekh2 will see it. That means in an ongoing conversation, or posted to her Talk page, for instance.
Captain Screebo—yes, I initiated two sections on your Talk page today. I'm trying to communicate with you. We can see those two sections here and here. Apparently you do not wish to discuss the subjects I've raised, as you've removed my posts, which is your prerogative. Bus stop (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 14:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Elen, I have a question about how BRD works. Suppose Editor A performs bold #1 and edits section X. Editor B then comes in and performs revert #1 on section X, then discuss #1 should take place to complete the first iteration of the cycle. Now, what if Editor B does not wait for discuss #1 to proceed and does bold #2 on section X. Does that technically violate the BRD cycle or do you count that as a new BRD cycle on the same section? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now Magog has managed to taint the spirit of my hypothetical question by giving it context :-/. Regarding the dispute, the matter is now closed (at least for him). Despite his allegations of my close-mindedness on the matter, I actually have a pretty open mind about the issue. I went through the flow chart used in WP:BRD step by step and showed how BRD was violated. It seems unlikely that my assertions are wrong. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BRD isn't meant as a mechanistic process, it's a descriptive guide to how to deal with conflicting views, and I'm not surprised that Magog's attempt to use it in a mechanistic way has backfired and ended in wikilawyering. When the BRD process is working, people will keep making changes incrementally, expecting to put the change back into the ongoing discussion for removal or tweaking.
Normally, if you're trying to control edit warring, 1RR is used instead, as in the example below. I would advise Magog to go over onto imposing 1RR on the article if he needs to keep order. If he had done that, it would have been perfectly clear.
Suppose the lede of an article subject to 1RR (say per 24hrs, and on all users) says "Jane Doe has two cats." The following amendments occur (say within an hour of each other):-
User:catlover - adds "beautiful Persian" to 'cats'
User:verify - reverts with the edit summary "unsourced"
User:catlover- reverts User:Verify, and then edits to add "white", so the article now reads "Jane Doe has two beautiful white Persian cats."
Admin:noeditwar - blocks catlover for 24hours for breach of 1RR. Note that the outcome would have been the same if catlover had simply added "beautiful white Persian", as that's still reverting Verify.
Hate to barge in here sounding critical, but that wouldn't be a 1RR breach if I'm counting correctly. At that point in time catlover has only undone the edits of another editor once in 24 hours, since the very first edit wasn't a revert (assuming it was a direct addition, not undoing something verify had done previously). It's the whole "first mover" principle that works the same with 3RR: if all we're doing is counting, and not looking at the more general definition of edit-warring, the person who starts, "wins" (in the sense that their edit stays in the article, at least until 24 hours have elapsed). Or do I misunderstand something?Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can set a 1RR on all users, so the next person who reverts gets the sanction. It's useful where you have several editors supporting position A and several supporting position B, who have previously been reverting sequentially. It has the same effect that Magog is after, and it's drastic, but it makes it clear that it's reverting, rather than new edits that are the problem. In the specific example that I believe caused the question from Bob, Tenmai would have been in a sanctionable position because he had reverted the previous edit before going on to modify the text he wanted to replace it with (if I understood correctly).
In terms of BRD, it takes experienced editors who are prepared to co-operate to make it work - it's no good trying to use it as a means of control. If it's working, what you get is something like
User:catlover - adds "beautiful Persian" to 'cats'
User:verify - reverts with the edit summary "unsourced"
User:catlover - provides source on talkpage, notes that cats are white, proposes adding this info
User:prefersdogs - notes that source says Jane Doe used to own a dog
User:prefersdogs - adds "and used to own a dog"
User:hatecruft - reverts as UNDUE and comments on talkpage that deceased pets are beyond the pale
User:catlover- changes text to "owns two Persian cats and used to own a dog" with catlover's source
User:verify adds "white" to 'Persian cats' and comments on talkpage that we should reflect sources
User:hatecruft - replaces with "Jane Doe is a pet owner" and comments on talkpage about introducing TRIVIA
All users discuss whether it is trivia
This is the effect that Magog is commendably after, but it can't be enforced in the way that ORR and IRR can be, and no-one should be sanctioned for not discussing an edit. It requires editors working to gether in good faith. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of wiki-jargons that I am not used to. :)
My impression from Elen's post is that she agrees with me that Tenmei's action has placed him in a sanctionable position. While I am not particularly concerned about the whole 1RR vs. BRD at the moment, I believe there are now two matters that require attention:
The admin in question had selectively sanctioned User:Lvhis for a rule violation while exempting other offenders (User:Tenmei) from punishment. For the sake of fairness, User:Tenmei should be given the same punishment.
The admin in question had, on multiple occasions tried to shut off discussions regarding his apparent enforcement of double standards and implicitly accused whistle-blowers of having unreasonable agenda.
It will certainly be interesting to see how these issues are going to be handled. After all, administrators are supposed to be exemplars of WP conduct. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the jargon. Basically what I am saying is that Magog started from the wrong place, and should not be sanctioning anyone (Tenmei or Livhas) for a failure to discuss as BRD is not a rule of any kind, it's just a suggestion for helpful editing. Apart from anything else, sanctioning someone for not discussing on the talkpage violates a primary rule of Wikipedia that you can't force an editor carry out an action if their choice is to do nothing. If Magog wants to control edit warring, his best bet is to impose WP:1RRto control reversion, as you can sanction an editor for carrying out a prohibited action. I'm presuming he's watching this discussion, as he threw his 2 bits in at the start - I'd be glad to discuss this further with him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The finer details of whether or not Magog should've punished people for breaking BRD is something you admins should discuss. Regardless of outcome, #2 is still an issue that deserves to be discussed because it has something to do with admin conduct. I still lean towards applying a sanction on Tenmei for #1 because several admins (including our ever-present friend Qwyrxian) agreed to this [22]in the beginning and other admins had refused [23] to overturn Lvhis' block when he petitioned to have it revoked. If Tenmei is exempted from this because people decided to protest against the rule right when he's about to be sanctioned, some may argue that this course of action is taken so that Tenmei does not need to get a block-log entry even if that's not something on anyone's mind (and I am certainly not implying you have such intent, since you weren't even around in the beginning). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am here following the link Bob left to me. First of all, I would say I respected admin Magog the Ogre even he blocked me that time; but now I has been totally lost, confused, and disappointed by his decision on Tenmei's action. After reading the comments here, particularly the explanation from Elen, I learned more for these quite complicated wiki professional things and hope learn even more. From what I have perceived it sounds more clearly that, if I should be blocked as I have got, Tenmei shall get blocked too; or if Tenmei should not be blocked, I should have not been blocked, no matter what, 1RR or BRD cycle, is applying for here, i.e. just one standard. Another point is, that even if I broke something resulting in a block, I did that indeliberately, while Tenmei violated same rule (or whatever is) deliberately which interrupted an ongoing discussion by starting another weird "discussion". I hope a correction is needed here. If it is now really difficult to enforce a sanction on Tenmei, can it be feasible to add some corrective explanation on my block log to cancel that block? Although that block has been effective and expired, the correction is very necessary if I in fact should not be blocked using same standard applying for Tenmei. I hope there is no discrimination exist in editing wiki. --Lvhis (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid discrimination is a common element in Wikipedia, since it is a very political place. One of my motivations for pressing this matter is to see whether or not a simple and straight-forward matter like this will be derailed by personal favouritisms harboured by administrators. While the obvious red flag we see here is an unsatisfactory termination of debate by Magog the Ogre, a less obvious red flag is the "hands-off" stance taken by Qwyrxian, which is a marked contrast compared to his angry tirades against some harmless cartoons not too long ago. Though one can argue that he hadn't really followed this matter closely, the specificity of his comments on this issue suggests otherwise. It's also possible that he agreed with Magog the Ogre that Tenmei had not broken the BRD cycle. But considering Qwyrxian's nit-picky nature and intimate knowledge of wiki-laws (as demonstrated by his recent nit-pick of Elen's 1RR example), I don't think he'd keep quiet if he truly disagreed with my arguments :). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Tenmei had broken BRD (he didn't), it does not matter, because Tenmei has stated that he is temporarily stepping away from Senkaku Islands issues as he is worried his presence is causing a problem. Since Tenmei is no longer editing there, any block of him would be purely punitive (there's no editing to prevent), and thus expressly forbidden by the blocking policy. Why would Magog continue to debate when, even if we somehow concluded that there was a BRD violation, there would be nothing to do anyway? I did't need to be "hands on" because your argument is both irrelevant and wrong, and Magog made the right call in the first place. As for the cartoons, racism is never harmless; I accept that you don't see them as racist, I wish you would understand that I do, and that therefore they weren't "harmless". Since the issue was collapsed, and I took some time off to cool down, I was hoping that was the end of the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding this properly, you said Tenmei should not be blocked because he expressed a temporary interest in stepping away from the article. If that's the case, then can't anyone use that as an exploit to game the system? For example, a person can perform knowingly commit an act that will eventually result in a block and circumvent it by declaring a temporary wiki-break. As an admin, you should understand a block is more than a temporary denial of access, since it leaves a mark on the user history.
I am not sure how my argument is irrelevant or wrong. You'd have to tell me how. As far as I know, Elen agreed that Tenmei has put himself in a sanctionable position under Magog's strict BRD conditions. I've also shown exactly where the BRD process was broken by referencing the flowchart. I hope you understand by now that that I do not take claims very seriously unless there is a pretty solid supporting argument, which is something you have not provided (unless you are referring to your whole thing about "a user shouldn't be blocked if he agreed to stay away"). Suppose you plan to prove me wrong in your next response (if any), please do make explicit references to the flowchart. :)
As for your tirade against the comics, you considered it closed probably because you had happily dumped a load onto someone else and then declared the matter closed by citing how you were being taken advantage of :). I wouldn't deliberately force you into a discussion on the matter, but I will continue to make references to it wherever and whenever I feel like to, since I don't take very kindly to misguided self-righteous finger-pointing. By the way, I believe you were already told that characters in this cartoon series regularly spoke broken English. That nullified your whole rant about the orientals-speaking-engrish stereotype already. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :)[reply]
You're probably not familiar with WP:Blocking policy. The policy states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they should not be intended as a punishment (see Purpose and goals below), but this is sometimes not satisfied." Since, by the time the issue was raised and debated, Tenmei had already declared that they were done, no block is allowed to be issued. Your perception that part of the point is to leave some sort of permanent black mark is, in fact, incorrect. As an example, If I go through my watchlist, and find that someone was vandalizing a few days ago, even if they vandalized four or five pages, if they haven't edited again since then, I probably wouldn't be allowed to block them (exceptions exist). The question we have to ask is, would issuing Tenmei a one or two day block, now, be preventative? No, it certainly would not, since thy haven't been editing the topic in question and have stated they won't. I also hold that Tenmei didn't break BRD (if such a thing is possible--one of the things Elen is trying to point out, I think, is that it's not really that kind of process), but that debating with you why he didn't is a waste of time since we've already determined that we can't block Tenmei. Finally, please stop talking about the cartoons. I have very clearly told you that I find them to be offensive. Note that I didn't collapse the discussion--Benlinsquare did. That was the correct choice, since it was an unproductive discussion that had nothing to do with Senkaku Islands. You raising them again is an attempt to either bait me or to deliberately offend me; I don't care which, because you shouldn't be doing either. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly preventive value in issuing a block even when the subject has declared a wiki-break. As I've pointed out earlier, experienced users can easily game the system you described by declaring a wiki-break right before an expected block is issued. The fact that such loopholes are officially allowed will most certainly undermine the deterrence value of blocks. I suppose that could be what Tenmei had done too, he only declared a temporary leave from the article after I got involved in the debate.
You still haven't explained to me how Tenmei didn't interrupt the BRD cycle. I've provided my reasoning on why he has interrupted the BRD cycle and you are advised to attack my argument there if you want to claim the contrary. :)
It is not very nice of you to accuse others of "baiting" or "deliberately offending" you over the comics when you were the person who barged into a discussion and issued threats and insults :-). A simple "Hey, I am tremendously sorry about barking up the wrong tree" would've been satisfactory". But instead you were all "I am not talking about this because you are taking advantage of me", which is not very satisfactory. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwyrxian, your interpretation of block policy toward the real case for Tenmei is incorrect. The very unfair and injustice point for this case is here: when I was reported by John Smith's to Magog the Ogre, I was swiftly blocked by Magog the Ogre in less than 2 hours. When I reported Magog that Tenmei was violating BRD strictly set by Magog on 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC), and repeated my report on 03:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC), and on 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC), and on 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC), there was nothing happened until 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC), which had more than 31 hours past. During this period, Tenmei was very actively editing in the talk page of the page where he violated the BRD, and fought against my report in Magog the Ogre's talk page. Tenmei declared to temporary withdrew from editing relevant page on 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC), when it was about 11 hours after Magog the Ogre denied my report and a debate about this violation began. When I was blocked, I also ensured in my appeal that I would not change what Magog had reverted to, but my appeal was denied by admins including Magog. So, Qwyrxian, your interpretation is incorrect for this case when comparing the treatments what Tenmei got and what I got. --Lvhis (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GENTLEMEN! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room. My opinion is as follows:-
Magog picked the wrong tool to try to control edit warring.
Magog made a mistake blocking Lvhis (reasons given above), and another mistake not blocking Tenmei
However, too much time has now passed to make it reasonable to block Tenmei, so he isn't going to be blocked for that instance
Thank you very much Elen for your fair and justice opinion. If I was one of the parties fighting here making you uncomfortable, my sincere apologies. I am also thankful for leaning some wiki professional knowledge from your explanation and comments. For Magog, I said I respected him, and hope to keep respecting him. I have a feeling, though may be wrong, that there might be some odd happened that made him changed. I do not remain pissed off him. May I learn one more thing from you: is it feasible for me to appeal for a correction of the past incorrect block on me as I mentioned on my post above on 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ? If it is, where should I go? Thanks again. --Lvhis (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Unfortunately, refactoring block logs requires some kind of black magic from the developers, so it's only done in very rare cases. I never delete anything from my talkpage archive (except drive by vandalism) so if you want you can keep a permanent link to this discussion in case anyone asks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elen :). You've done more than I asked for, although the "too much time has now passed" point does not make sense, because it opens up room for exploit (in this case, one can find a method or an admin friend or two to filibuster for a week and he's home free).
Your advice of taking this to RFCU or ANI certainly makes sense on a theoretical level, but in practice, DR is all about politics. Against people with ties to powerful cliques, I don't think there is anything that can be done by nobodies like myself. :)
I suppose we just have to live with the facts that (1) some people are more equal than others and (2) even whistle-blowers require powerful political backup. :-) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the too much time thing does open up room for precisely that exploit, and one does see it happen annoyingly frequently. I disagree that DR is all about politics, and that whistleblowers require powerful backup. I also don't think this is a whistleblowing situation, I think this is a situation where an admin had a situation run away with him and he ended up with a less than optimal solution. I've seen Magog get his ting in a twost before while intending to do the right thing. If you think there are many more instances of this happening, then the correct step is the RFC/U. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like this line so much that I've included it in one of my numerous friendly reminders to Qwyrxian. :)
I certainly hope this is a simple case of Magog and Q forgetting their medication :). Since this is about as much as you can practically do about this matter (especially when it comes to the conducts of other admins), I consider the matter to be resolved in a satisfactory manner in your talk page. Thanks for your assistance :). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find your implication that myself and Magog the Ogre are mentally ill (and thus need "medication" in order to be able to edit properly) to be a personal attack, and request that you retract it. No, the smiley face doesn't make it all better, and no I don't care if you meant it as a joke. I no longer accept that it is my lot to be personally attacked by you at whim just because it's your natural way of speaking (I think that's what you told me before, apologies if you gave some other reason for the continued incivility). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob, from my experience, even jokey references to 'being nuts', 'taking the pills' etc do tend to be received badly both by the recipient and by the community. Civility is defined culturally, but when someone has indicated that they are offended, it is normally prudent to take it that they are legitimately offended. So if this was intended as a joke, I would suggest refactoring and apologising even if you did not intend an insult. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that Q would be glad to be let off the hook on this one, but it appears I am so very completely wrong :p! "Going nuts", "forgetting the pills", "went crazy", etc, are widely used in North American culture as harmless figures of speech to suggest a momentary lapse of judgment. Since both admins are North Americans, they should be used to that. Of course, there is this matter of personal preference that people can often use as an excuse to demand whatever apologies from or issue whatever fatwas on others :). If we really want to get into this awesome arena of playing victim, I think I will first demand an apology from Qwyrxian for suggesting that I am a racist ;-). Personally, I don't think Magog cares, but in the event he does, I can easily find something socially unacceptable to demand an apology from. Now Q, do we really want to go this direction :)? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, I would be equally offended if you posted such a comment addressed to me. Please refactor your edit on my talkpage, and stop trying to weasel your way out of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word weasel that you applied on me can be interpreted as a very tremendously insulting term [24] ;'(. Since we are now supposed to be very tremendously concerned about incivility while pretending this is not meant to be a distraction of the unsatisfactory administrative conduct we discussed just a while ago", do you not think that word should be struck out :-(? Since I am very awfully terrible at picking the phrases that certain people wouldn't construe as racist and offensive, maybe Q can help me out a little. For example, I can give him this moral permission of editing my posts in your talk page and he can then refactor any number of phrases he consider to be offensive to anything he likes. That sounds like a reasonable solution and I hope you consider this to be a satisfactory resolution. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Weasel' - as in weasel words - if it's such a very insulting term, you probably need to take it up with the policy writers. I sympathise with your problem over accidentally offending people - it can be done in entirely good faith (as with the note below about a joking reference I made to myself 'growing a pair', where another person in the discussion had suffered testicular cancer). My advice would be to be slightly more formal with people unless they have 'given you permission' to use slangy expressions around them. So 'having a temporary lapse...' instead of 'forgetting the pills...' etc. I find that the times I get into problems are usually when I have been too informal.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, to be fair, I generally wouldn't be upset about a passing comment here or there from a random editor. But Bobthefish2, you seem to not understand when your words cause offense; when your phrasing is unpleasant or hurtful to others, you have, in the past, literally refused to change, placing the onus on others to simply accept your conversational style. So I feel like the only thing I can do is to point out to you each time you say something offensive (at least about me), so that maybe I can show you when you're crossing the WP:CIVIL line. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, you should've simply accepted the point instead of giving me an opportunity to apply more criticisms :). First of all, the terms "weasel" and "weasel word" have very different meanings in the English language. Secondly, you've just contradicted your lecture about how people from different cultures can legitimately take exception to seemingly harmless expressions. A good way to reconcile this would be to ask Q to bring the "forgetting the pills" idiom to policy writers and to have that censored :).
Q, I don't think you are in a very good position to make criticisms because you've had a history of being ridiculously sensitive to all kinds of allegedly offensive expressions and then proceeded to blow things out of proportions in an unceremonious manner.
Unfortunately, I do not buy your excuse for constantly stalking my edits to hunt for traces of incivility to warn/threaten/complain about. That's because I usually do not accept authority from people who would zealously go after a single individual while completely ignoring similar or more severe offenses committed by themselves or others. In your case, you've even very clearly noted on a previous occasion that you made a conscious decision of selectively hounding my edits as well as the possibility that you wouldn't have cared as much if the content in question was produced by someone else. :)
By the way, you've still not told me why it wasn't a BRD interruption. Maybe you should check with Elen since she's a much more experienced admin and she disagreed with your assessment. I sincerely hope you didn't disagree with me simply because you have been very tremendously angry at me recently (the feeling isn't mutual, by the way). :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<nosarcasm>I see Elen has offered a sincere apology to an amputee regarding her joke about his amputation, which I am genuinely proud of her about. Although this would seem like a natural thing to do for a well-behaving person, not every person in this page actually has this kind of decency. </nosarcasm> --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have two Wikipedia accounts: User:Freekra and User:FiachraByrne. The Freekra account was created in late November 2009 and I stopped using it in early December 2009. The FiachraByrne account was created in February 2011 and is in use down to the present. I created the second account because I forgot the password to my first account and I don't think I've logged into it since December 2009. I did post this information before when, I think, I applied for either rollback or reviewer privileges. However I've only just read WP:Puppet policy today.
Hi. It's not possible to merge accounts I'm afraid. What you can do is redirect the User and Talkpage of Freekra to FiachraByrne, if you have edits on the old account that you want to acknowledge. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In a previous sockpuppet investigation, A.B.C.Hawkes(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was identified as a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole (talk·contribs), a long term wikistalker, whom Shell Kinney kept track of over the years. This user most recently appeared as Taciki Wym(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) to disrupt an ArbCom case. A.B.C.Hawkes appears to be the same user and has attempted to disrupt a Arbitration Enforcement request, This was consistent behaviour of all the A.K.Nole sockpuppets.
I have reverted A.B.C.Hawkes edits. His account was confirmed as a sockpuppet in this recent SPI report:
However the accounts were left unblocked. Please could you block that account (A.B.C.Hawkes) and that of Old Crobuzon and Echigo mole. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't work out whether they actually concluded that the other two guys were the same person - or why they didn't, as they were all editing at the same time, and recently enough for a checkuser to have the data they needed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be describing his sensitivity - poor chap, I wasn't aware of his tribulations. I would have thought that if someone told him to grow a pair, he would be extremely offended, and quite rightly. If it wasn't addressed at him (or indeed at anyone particularly), I wouldn't regard it as incivility - but I wouldn't use the phrase around him again. Yeah, I suppose it is sort of reverse sexist for me to say that LOL. I find I don't actually need testosterone - I do perfectly well on cranky old biddy power :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
scuse slow conribs - fell in street yest lunchtime - have right arm in sling and hand in splint. no breaks tho. hopefully back up to sspeed next couple of days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at Tree shaping. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree with ssilk tork - rfm is premature. let the rfc run for longer than en days, and get a few more voices - not your fault but yours is the most visible. discuss how frequently arborsculpture occurs in the lit - not turns up in google search. get colincb to do lit review as he is one pressing for descriptive name. scuse typing - right hand in splint. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alas - the claim that the Polar Review reprinted the Tatham work is errant - the cite given is for a review of the book, not for a reprint. The review is, indeed, on page 384. I see no reason why the book is RS as it remains self-published, and contains specifically "embellished' biographies etc. Might you revist RSN now that you have been apprised that the reprint does not exist? Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What remains is that the book was not republished, and that it is not widely available to people (Amazon shows one copy for sale at over $200). Nor is the book available in libraries. One can, presumably, buy it from the author. I would never have checked it out had one editor not insisted "claimed" in "claimed the settlement was destroyed" was not reasonably stated as "said the settlement was destroyed" <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no general requirement that a source be widely available. Nor is there a requirement that sources be neutral. I do think it can be used with caution, as in 'this source says....', not making it sound like its widely accepted whenm only this source says it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is, however, a stricture on "self published sources" which this one remains. The claim that Polar Review republished the book was errant. Theonly source remains the author. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, the above information is misleading. It is not readily available via Amazon US but it certainly is via Amazon UK, its still in print. Similarly its relatively easy to obtain from a public library in the UK. I would ask you to note that I have pointed this out to Collect at WP:RSN, where I have supported this with links.
He is also repeating the claim that the biographies were "embellished". This is misleading, where biographies were short the editor asked other contributors to expand the details. This isn't the first time he has made such unsubstantiated claims but to continue to make them after being proved wrong is worrisome.
The fact it is used to cite is not controversial in the least, point of fact if you remove it he will remove the Argentine claim. I am concerned that Collect has lost any sense of perspective here. Wee Curry Monstertalk20:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS does not say that an SPS may be used for stuff which one editor says is "not controversial." Meanwhile, the word "embellish" is from the reviewer of the book if I recall correctly, and was not my word for the "expanded" autobiographies. As far as accusing me of wanting to remove content from the article - my only edit was to change "claimed" to "said" which I had rather thought was not that controversial - inasmuch as you have now adopted that wording yourself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me why did you feel the need to repeat claims you must know by now to be misleading?
I have not adopted your wording; your edit changed the context of the sentence and misrepresented the source (and you edited without any reference to a source). I changed the text but in truth largely because I felt hounded and bullied by you. I don't consider it improved the article as a result. I have also explained what the reviewer meant by embellish and you are taking their comments out of context. Again why are you repeating this claim?
You stated in the article talk page that anything cited from that source should be removed, do I need to provide diffs?
The deletion of the Senkaku Islands mediation threads was unexpected. For me, the surprise was untimely. I hope that Feezo will be willing to explain this edit:
Can't do that I'm afraid. It is standard practice when a failed mediation results in an arbcom case for the mediators to delete the files - it's part of MEDCOM's ground rules for mediation that it cannot subsequently be used as evidence against any of the parties. Sorry. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore my diffs only.
I did not contribute to all of the threads, only some of them. If you will first restore the index of sections, I can identify the sections which concern me most.
No Tenmei, I can't do that. It is part of the terms of MEDCOM that if there is a subsequent RFAR, the pages will be deleted for the duration of the RFAR, and no-one will have access to them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - This edit [26] was clearly made by Glkanter (and is effectively a personal attack on me). I've deleted it once but he's restored it. Can you help here? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing edits, clearly from the same user: [27][28] (using two different IP addresses in an attempt to make these look like different users - one from Verizon the other from Cavalier Telephone, an ISP - my guess is the 184.* address is his PC's current DHCP address and the 71.* address is a smartphone). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have opined. Don't know if it takes things any further. There's no point asking a checkuser - one account never edited the other last edited in Sept 2004, so there's no record. I'm not sure there's even evidence the two accounts were created by the same person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for you to use checkuser. I just figured that it would be beneficial to ask for advice from an user with experience with sockpuppetry cases and policies. Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[29], [30] – The Cavalry doesn't wish to remove the sockpuppetry tags himself, but he agreed not to interfere if an experienced, uninvolved sysop were to remove those tags. If you believe that the tags shouldn't be there, and if you're comfortable with removing the tags, you may do so. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you do close the ANI discussion against me, I ask you to consider this somewhat belated proposal of an interaction ban; Beeblebrox had (I now see) suggested it earlier as an indispensible part of any settlement.
The proposal which is presently on the table was proposed, and is chiefly supported, by editors who disagree with me on two issues of guidance; the proposer intends it, in his own words, to leave me unable to argue my position or justify my edits if challenged; the same editor, as Carcharoth and GTBacchus observe here, was - at the same time - baiting me by distorting my username on Carcharoth's talk page and elsewhere. Now he proposes to silence me on the whole topic. This is the old use of a civility complaint to settle a content dispute.
I will abstain from WT:MOS whatever you decide; I will accept an interaction ban without comment, indeed with relief. I would prefer not to spend time appealling your decision; but if ArbCom wishes to make MOS a code of rules, decided by majority vote, and opposition to which is punishable by a gag rule, that change in policy should be done in public.
You will see, in reviewing the case, that the original issue with GTBacchus is resolved; I said more than I meant, I apologized, and he said he looks forward to working with me. (All this on his talk page.) I have resolved not to post in anger, and will be happy to accept any reasonable restrictions to ensure this happens. The rest of this is a WP:COATRACK, to hang unrelated sanctions upon me. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal presently being pushed has been described by two of the few uninvolved admins to comment on it, as they switched to oppose the extension:
Carcharoth: I want to make sure this canard that all TITLE issues are MOS issues doesn't spread from here, but more important is to make sure that the terms of any topic ban are nailed down firmly. It is quite clear from the discussions at WT:TITLE over COMMONNAME, where Dicklyon (for one) refers to a series of edits made in 2009 by Pmanderson and Born2cycle as 'hot air', that there are deeply entrenched ideologies over there. If things are not made clear now, you can be sure that Pmanderson will arrive at a discussion citing WP:COMMONNAME and claim it is a content/NPOV issue, not a style issue, and you can be just as sure that someone will haul Pmanderson off to a noticeboard and demand an immediate indef block. So please can we be crystal clear as to what the topic ban means.
Bkonrad: If Greg's interpretation below is understood to apply, then I Oppose. I could support if this were limited to discussions of policy pages, with some additional caveats with regards to participation in other forums, such as move discussions. I.e., if PMA can contribute responsibly and civilly in such discussions (and I've seen that it is possible for him to do so), that should be encouraged. There could perhaps be some sort of escalation clause, if such discussions get out of hand based on interpretations of WP:AT, but such a blanket prohibition is tantamount to giving PMA's antagonists another stick to poke into his cage.
I just received a message from Ronz on my talkpage. It's rather odd for him not to discuss the issue here and instead badger people on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
When someone tries that with me, I usually just delete the edit and tell 'em to come here. It can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, he seems to be adding templates designed for use with individual editors - COI warnings, unreferenced BLP warnings etc. I can't see anything that's inappropriate. Is there a central argument going on somewhere that these all relate to? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The terms everybody voted on was an *indefinite* ban. Not a 1 year ban. Not that I don't know which is better or worse, I'm convinced he isn't going to change anyway, but I don't think it's the right thing to change the terms from what was agreed on when closing. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot of terms everybody voted on - that's the problem with this kind of unstructured discussion. And the votes included a number who would only vote for a time limited solution. I actually don't think it makes any difference - if anything, it makes it more likely that he would be banned from the project if he came back from a year's topic ban and immediately started trying to overturn what had been achieved in the year he was away.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a limited and restricted ban. I have continued normal activities away from MOS; I don't believe any of them violate the ban you have set; but would you look over my edits for the past week, and see if you would advise against any of them? I would appreciate it, since several of the most contentious editors want a very sweeping reading. (Not as many as one might think; ANI has taken up most of my time.)
You will see that I have responded to Dicklyon twice. Once was when he went out of his way to praise my work; I thought it helpful to respond in kind, especially since I did agree to what he was saying (nothing to do with MOS; the nature of neutrality on article titles). The other was in reply to a direct question. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look. I hope you can walk away from this area (even if you have to grind your teeth from time to time) and find more profitable and less stressful topics to work on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen. I would like to ask for a clarification regarding enactment of proposal N+1b as enunciated in the motion to close in the recent ANI regarding PManderson: Motion to close, with acceptance of Alternative N+1, as expanded and interpreted in Alternative N+1b: Indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia:Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly; perhaps with wider provisions added, according to the closing admin's assessment of earlier voting on this page. In the above section PManderson requests that you vet his edits regarding compliance with his editing restrictions, meanwhile from a cursory look several of his recent edits are at WP:Article titles. PManderson also replies to Dick Lyon enquiring on the same point in the talkpage of WP:Article titles that the ban from article titles does not apply to him, permalink. Does that mean that N+1b has not been enacted? Thank you. Dr.K.λogosπraxis15:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been discussing neutral titles; as I did at the WP:ARBMAC2 case, which Dr K may recall. I have also discussed elsewhere the question whether Tenedos should be where it is (as the English literature has always had it) or at Bozcaada. Nothing to do with style, unless MOS is the only guideline on Wikipedia (it says nothing about the Boston Massacre, nor about Tenedos); when this question came up during the date delinking case, ArbCom then decided that the pages were distinct. I would not, and have not, discussed the question of the relationship between the two, except to answer such questions. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, thanks for closing this. I was about to ask about what Dr. K just asked. It seems that your restriction is inadvertently narrower than what is needed to address the problem, and narrower than what the community agreed. PMA made it clear (see Dr. K's link above) that an MOS restriction will not keep him out of titling issues. But titling, and requested-move discussions, are the proximal causes of the most recent and many earlier blowups centered around PMA. They are his mechanism for subverting the MOS. Your restriction as listed at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community, "Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language..." may limit what he can say at RMs, but keeping him out of them altogether is what we had agreed on, in alt N+1b: "...topic ban from Wikipedia:Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly." This whole section was there to clarify that limiting the ban to MOS would not be nearly enough to address the problem. I hope you can review and adjust this. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, if any of my recent edits have, in your view, "subverted" the Manual of Style, do let me know. I was attempting to walk away from this area; it seems some editors won't let me. You will remember the late hyphen-dash case; a large number of editors oppose the idea that the MOS is a body of rules which can be subverted. (You may not realize that I supported and argued for the compromise proposed thereafter; it failed because of the opposition by those who felt that it was too rule-bound.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1: There were at least half a dozen proposed remedies, ranging from a permanent ban to a trout, with people voting on all of them, some of them, for some and against others, for some with variations, against others unless there were variations. I have done my best. If people (including the subject of the remedy, and others) will WP:AGF and go away and write an encyclopaedia, then things will quieten down. If you don't like my close, go and find someone else to overturn it and close it to your taste.
2: Pmanderson, you are not helping. Could you please stop commenting here at this time in this thread, because you are clearly overstepping the terms of your ban already, and I suspect you know you are driving your "opponents" to frothing rage. Referring to anything you did or said in the past in respect of MOS or the English language as she is broken is under the ban, so let it alone please.
I thank you. I thank you very much. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Coming to the defense of poor Elen, who had the misfortune of raising her hand and doing some heavy lifting in an all-volunteer, collaborative writing club).
All: you will note the actual language of the restriction:
Sanction: Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year.
Special Enforcement Details: He has already agreed to leave this area alone, so I do not anticipate an enforcement issue, but if he does breach the ban, he can expect to be blocked for one week for a first offence and for the residuum of the topic ban for a repeat offence. If during the topic ban period, another substantial issue to do with civility, tendentious editing, personal attacks and/or disruption should arise, he faces being banned from Wikipedia permanently. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson
I’m not trying to brown-nose here (those who know me know that my DNA doesn’t permit that sort of thing very easily), but Elen of the Roads seems to have done an excellent job groking the mix at the ANI and distilling it into thoughtful and pithy sanction verbiage.
Remember how there was concern about article-name moves? Moves like Crepe → Crêpe were something the community agreed he needed to stay out of, but how a number of editors pointed out that there were substance moves such as “Death of…” → “Murder of…” or my own Disgusting breakfasts of the U.K. → Toxic breakfasts of England. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what to call these *substance based* moves (I’m calling them “substance” only here in this post). But Elen nicely distilled the proper restriction: …“or technical aspects of the use of the English language”…
Indeed, that restriction might seem insufficiently broad to encompass Bozcaada (the Greek-language name of the island) → Tenedos. I would submit, however, that if PMA is operating in a collegial manner in the collaborative writing environment that is Wikipedia, people might cut PMA some slack, think the restriction doesn’t cover “which language” issues, and think Elen’s sanction wording to be genius. If, on the other hand, PMA is up to his old ways, I submit that others will look at the restriction (…“or technical aspects of the use of the English language”…), think Elen’s language to be the gift of a wordsmith, and block him for a week.
I’m just not seeing a problem here with giving PMA a teeny bit of latitude to sink or swim in accordance with community expectations of conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Thank you for the elaboration. I didn't take part in this process but I asked for a clarification so that I could understand better the mechanism of the slightly mysterious decision-making process known as "ANI closing" and its implementation in the form of editing restrictions. I can understand Elen's interpretation of the ANI consensus and in no way I wanted to appear to criticise her decision. But in the current environment a simple request for clarification may be/was misinterpreted as a challenge or a dislike of the applied remedy. FWIW, I had no such intention. Dr.K.λogosπraxis20:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need at all to apologise Elen, but thank you, nonetheless, for the graceful gesture. I think you did an excellent job both implementing and defending the ANI closing. A few reminders to go write the encyclopedia never hurt either :) Take care. Dr.K.λogosπraxis20:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you, Elen: I hope this works for everyone concerned. I duknow if it will *work*, but everyone should agree that you did an excellent job in closing and clearly endeavored to identify a proper consensus from a potpourri of thoughts. I am horrible about giving out barstars since there are so many, I am a rather thoughtless individual when it comes to gifts, and I am loath to be seen as trying to curry favor, but you clearly deserve a heartfelt “thanks.” Greg L (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have counselled him with a cluebat. I think you could actually use that source (or this source [31] in the personal life and beliefs section (if you weren't trying to make a point about how Azerbaijani he is), and if there is a source, I feel the article could usefully list all the languages that he speaks, as this source makes reference to his multilinguality as something that led him to fuzzy logic. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the other source, which did indeed have a more moderate version of what Saygi1 has been attempting to add to the article, that Zadeh's 3 years of schooling in Baku "had a significant and long-lasting influence on my thinking and my way of looking at things." I've added that to the article using that source, along with another pull quote. I'll let Saygi1 know on his his talk page, but I doubt it's going to do much good, as he's appraently firmly convinced that I'm a POV warrior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An admin cited this as his evidence in a recent arbitration case. I thought he might've misinterpreted your verdict in our little discussion in the past, but maybe I am wrong. [32] --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I said that Lhvis did not warrant a block, but I certainly recall saying I believed Tenmei did warrant one...no, wait. I did say that I believed you shouldn't block a user just for a single instance failure to discuss. So that would imply that Lhvis shouldn't have been blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the concept of interest was really the matter about whether or not was in Tenmei a sanctionable position based on the said admin's special BRD rules. Based on your posts [33], I interpreted that as a "Yes, Tenmei should theoretically blocked based on those rules but no, those BRD=ban rules should not have been used in the first place". For reference, here's what I wrote about you in the Evidence page (in less than 5 words) [34]).
It would be nice if this can be sorted out, since I am now accused of lying, edit-warring, and being all sorts of nasty stuff for somehow allegedly misinterpreting your intent. I'd apologize to you if I've somehow misunderstood your words. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I am not asking you to write a block in the ArbCom case. I suppose I am simply looking for boolean answer for two questions:
Did I misinterpret your message?
Did the person in the diff misinterpret your message?
I understand you recused and thus would probably prefer not to get involved, but I thought it'd be nice to get a small bit of clarification from you. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, it may not be appropriate to ask/push Elen to repeat her opinion at current moment. Particularly the Arb/Case/SI/Workshop page has been now heated up so much since Qwyrxian et al posted his or their proposed remedies for banning other parties but lacking proposed principles. I still believe Elen's that opinion is very correct, and Magog's interpretation in his "Evidence" is incorrect. This is not just because I might be benefited from that, also because it is for justice and fairness that should be proved by this free Wikipedia project. I mentioned in my response that Magog used 2 standards, one tough and one soft, in the case in question. If I did not misinterpret Elen's this points, she meant it would be better not to apply that sanction only in a mechanistic way. By my understanding, if there is some narrow flexible range or room for that sanction (i.e. tiny tougher ↔ tiny softer), the edit quality could be considered as a factor. In this case, Magog also admitted that "Lvhis was a better faith contributor" that was 100% compatible with Elen "believed Lvhis was making a good faith contribution, while Tenmei was not" [35]. Therefore, my edit should have been treated as "B" → "B" → "B", neither "R" nor violating "BRD", Tenmei's edit should have been treated as violating "BRD" by
breaking the ongoing "D", making "BRD" → "BRD". Elen's opinion that I should have not been blocked while Tenmei should have been blocked makes perfect sense here. The mistake Magog made is he treated the two edits totally in an opposite way. That is why Elen pointed he made two mistakes. Although Magog pointed a truth that I am not an en-N, I am confident I have construed Elen's opinion correctly by reading that whole section several times, and also confident that Elen's opinion is correct and more fit WP's spirit and policies. Even conceding a bit, using very mechanistic way, I am certain Magog still has at least made one mistake there but not as he insisted he did both correct. --Lvhis (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being too responsive on that request - I was traveling and my internet access was rather sporadic. I probably would agree to that reduction conditioned on the acceptance of a mentorship - so I'm not really questioning your action on the merits, but I just don't see a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to modify it in that thread. Mind explaining your thoughts on that one? T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that most of the time your strategy on bans is totally valid, as the edit warriors seem to wait out bans and then start again. Also, when he first made the appeal, Someone35 was still saying "it wasn't me, I didn't do it", which doesn't inspire confidence. He has since modified his stance (unfortunately he's done it by modifying his statements without using strike/insert markers, so it doesn't jump out). In the course of the discussion, Demiumrge1000, Wikifan12345, Cptnono, and Malik Shabazz all expressed the view that a lesser sanction with mentorship was preferable with this young editor who might thus be instructed in more profitable ways, and two of them offered to mentor him/her. Zero0000 only expressed concern that Someone35 seemed not to have recognised the problem, saying he could make no decision until he did so. Russavia argued that Someone35 should have had a longer block for incivility to start with, and there was a general sense that other editors were not convinced in this particular case that the edits concerned were an IP issue as much as a civility issue. There also seemed no enthusiasm for imposing your sanction strategy on a relatively new editor and first time offender, who also did contribute constructively. So I did think there was an active consensus of editors, none were involved in the usual POV warrior type dispute with him, and I noted that Nableezy had accepted his apology for the actions which had resulted in the original block. I do apologise though - I didn't realise you were unavailable or I would have waited longer for you to respond to the proposal. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After making a comment/vote in an AfD, which is here [36], I felt it would be reasonable to leave a note on the sponsoring author's talk page, reiterating that the issue was not personal and encouraging further WP participation. (The editor seemed to be quite passionate, so some encouragement might help?) The account has been indefinitely (i.e. long term) blocked because there is "reason to believe more than one person is operating this account." I was aware that sockpuppetry is actively discouraged on Wikipedia. The reason for blocking here tho is a little different than that. While I do not agree with multiple people using an account either, I am curious as to whether multiple users on an account are actually against stated policy, and if so, whether you could direct my reading so that I have a better understanding. Thank you for taking the time to give me some insight and learning. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROLE is the policy that you are looking for. In this editor's case, I think we've dealt with the multiple account problem. I do believe this is a mother with a son who suffered a brain injury while serving his country, and if editing for him were the only problem, I would be prepared to lift the block as she has said that she will stop adding his edits as well as her own (nothing to stop him creating his own account - or if his injury is such that he needs assistance, his carer actually doing the typing for him).
The reason this editor is still blocked is that she has stated clearly and often that the only reason she wants to edit Wikipedia is to create a positive article on Julien Modica. There is obviously a raft of problems with this, and so far efforts to explain this have not been well received. You can see from the talkpage that the editor does not accept that the issue is around our notability standards - for example, her comments that we have articles on cancer survivors such as Christina Applegate who is notable for more than just being a cancer survivor. I liked your comments at the AfD about applying the criteria equally. You might have more success in discussing this with the editor. If she can see what the problem has been with her editing and approach, a further unblock appeal may well be successful. If you take it up, I wish you success. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointer to the specific policy. A sense of fair play drew me toward seeking additional context, and the intertwined considerations, while sad, fully assuage my intrigue. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that I can't ask Pmanderson a question that might pertain to a point of style? I have in the past, but will avoid doing so if it will get him in trouble. Or, for instance, if we were having a discussion at the Classical Greece and Rome project about whether it should be "ancient Rome" or "Ancient Rome," he wouldn't be allowed to contribute to that discussion? Even if someone said "I'd like to have Pmanderson's opinion on this?" (which I've said in the past as well). Cynwolfe (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately. The restriction is quite widely construed, and applies anywhere on the project. In this early stage of the ban he would be well advised to avoid all discussion of this type, because it is a WP:MOS/technical use of English related discussion, and he doesn't want to be seen as pushing the boundaries. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, ma'am. I appreciate your balanced approach to this longstanding community issue. I have to say one thing out of loyalty and fairness: I consider this a serious loss to the Greece & Rome project, where PMA's experience and knowledge are one of our greatest assets. I assume, however, he can still answer questions about content? And if I wanted his opinion on what to name a new article, would this be considered within the topic ban? And you seem to emphasize "English related," meaning he could address, say, questions about Latin? I'm really not trying to make a point; I would want to support behavior that allowed him to remain on WP, but I'm … I'm … well, OK, I'm plenty pissed that his opinion can't be asked even where it's welcome. (Not pissed at you; you're doing a needed job.) I suppose it's no secret that I would rather deal with a hundred PMAs than one politely passive-aggressive POV-pushing ignoramus. I shall now close my eyes and go about my business, meek, neutered, and Borg-like. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction is on discussions to do with WP:MOS and the technical use of English (given that this whole thing started with a stupid argument about using an accent in the word crepe]]. Discussion of content is fine. If he would master the art of walking away from certain arguments, he would do a lot better, but that's rather a counsel of perfection. As things stand, those he has pissed off would quickly pick up on any involvement in the discussion you mentioned. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience. I wasn't paying a lot of attention to this, and then when it floated into my field of vision, I realized I would need to modify my interactions. Again, please understand that none of my negative comments are directed at you. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment in the ANI discussion. I wonder if you explicitly intended your closure of PMA's ban discussion to leave him free to participate in article title and move discussions. There was a relevant part of the discussion you closed that had 13 supports for explicitly excluding him from such discussions, but I'm not sure if you felt that other parts of the thread took away from any clear consensus on that point. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed. I did see that there were comments about banning him entirely from title/move discussions, but the discussion kept expanding and contracting the terms of a proposed ban, and as all the recent problems had got some connection to MOS or use of English, I thought the ban imposed would be enough. I didn't intend to ban him from discussing whether it should be called Shiloh or Pittsburg Landings, but if he gets into trouble he's likely to either hit the technical english language restriction, or the stricture that if he gets into trouble he's likely to be banned from the project. If he has any sense, he'll stay away from trouble, if he doesn't, I don't think anyone is going to have sympathy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've two weeked the IP, although I assume he was at his granny's for lunch today as he hasn't reverted you. Let me know if you get more rogue edits and I'll semi the articles for a couple of weeks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some slightly racist people I know, use "sambo" as a humorously racist term. (More in patronising affection than as a slur.) That was not anyone's intent of course, but best to be careful with how one uses the word. I was going to arbitrarily retitle this section "Another sockpuppet of User:Whatever" but I wasn't sure if that was appropriate or accurate or what.
Sorry to be the latest reincarnation of the politically correct police; it's actually quite possible that the people I know who use the word this way are the only people who do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a dictionary describes it as "Disparaging and Offensive". If someone used "the N word" as part of their username, I'm not sure you'd use that in the same way. Or at least - I'd hope not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, is there no way to keep citation bots off an article? I'm actively working on Sexuality in ancient Rome, and I do not want consolidated footnotes till I'm done (which should be soon, since I'm quite sick of the subject and think I only have one more section to go). I find these "abcd" footnotes very confusing, as how do I know which letter to click on to return to my point in the text? I thought I'd added a template that would keep this thing away ({{bots|deny=citation bot}}). And when I look in the edit history, I don't even see where it happened so I can revert it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, since you've restored a couple of articles on request that were involved in the Marshallsumpter deletion, could you restore a copy of transcription start site to my userspace please? I was going to start from scratch but the article has been vouched for as containing useful information. Many thanks Jebus989✰09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at it, I should have stuck to my guns and started anew, it's pure Marshallsumpter: copyvios, CWW and non-sensical. Cheers for doing it anyway Jebus989✰21:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you have a look at semi-prot for this page, perhaps for the duration of the show (I did make the request at WP:RPP last night but looks like it has a back log.)I am WP:3RR'ed out on the page now. Mtking (edits) 22:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, not sure exactly when it ends, but lets hope that the IP's find something else to entertain themselves over the next month and any further extension to the protection is not needed. Mtking (edits) 23:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the creator blanks the page, it is usually deleted automatically. The page I could see (behind the one that was blanked) was a rant about censorship. Was the original actually about the organisation? If so, read WP:GNG and WP:ORG to see if the organisation meets those criteria. If it does, rewrite the article (you'll need to remember to log in first) including references to any secondary sources (newspaper or magazine articles perhaps) that would support its notability in Wikipedia terms.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think as part of the reverts and protection settings for Jesus, you may have totally unprotected the page - perhaps via a typo.
Up to a day ago, the page was semi-protected so IPs could not edit it, evidenced by the fact that there were no ClueBot actions there for a long time. Now, IPs have come to vandalize, and ClueBot is reverting some cases, we have to revert some other cases.
I think it may be a good idea to let the protection go back to where it was a few days ago, because it had brought stability to the page and you probably did not intend to change it anyway. Your help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I did understand what you meant but this guy just wasn't getting it. He still may not, but at this point we have tried our best. Unless i see evidence of his actually reading our policies, after this my approach will be, DNFTT. But thanks for stepping in too. he needs to know that this is not just one person's opinion! Slrubenstein | Talk22:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen I am not good with warning templates but could you plkease look at my most recent exchange with User talk:Wikiglobaleditor? I want to make sure he is properly warned about talk page behavior so if he uses article talk pages to soap box he can be sanctioned - without a clear and approprioate warning that wouldn't be fair. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk10:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After his latest response to you [38] I have upped the block to indefinite. I don't want him editing again unless/until I'm sure he understands our policies. If you think that's a bit much, I've asked for a review at WP:AN[39]] Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a moment, could you take a look at the contributions and talk page history of User:Northamerica1000? I'm afraid a situation is brewing there but I'm not sure how it should be dealt with, so I thought to ask you for some advice. --Nuujinn (talk)13:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
coul you take a look at this edit of mine? I removed a paragraph from the article Azerbaijani American which speculated about what the next Census results would show about the number of Azerbaijani Americans in the U.S. Although the paragraph was heavily referenced, the majority of putatively factual citations were from Azerbaijani sources, which I do not think are particularly reliable in this instance, plus there were general sources about undercounting in the census, with no mention of application to Azerbaijanis, and other non-reliable cites. (For instance, a proclamation from the Brooklyn Borough President which mentions 400,000 Azerbaijanis in the U.S. Needless to say, the Boro Prez simply signs what is written on the proclamation by someone else, usually a publicist, and in any case is not a reliable source abour ethnic populations of the U.S.) In total, the entire paragraph failed WP:CRYSTAL because it attempted to predict what the Census will say, when we can simply wait for the results and it will say what it says.
In any case, that was my reasoning, and, since the material was added by User:Saygi1, with whom I had a recent dispute, I thought you might be good enough to take a look at what I did to see if I went too far, prejudiced (perhaps) by my previous interactions with him. If you'd rather not, that's fine, no problem, but thanks for considering it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, removing a large paragraph with some 18 (!) reliable and verifiable sources cruicial to the article about an ethno-national group of people in U.S., by citing an exaggerated concern of "speculated about what the next Census results would show" is an overkill, don't you think? I know you have a tendency to remove sourced information, but previously it was only 2-4 sources, now it's 18.
For starters, you can simply re-phrase any sentence you feel "speculated", instead of just reverting, like you've done in the past on another article I edited (hmm, I wonder if you are targeting me? On the other hand, you would never do smth like, right?). In any case, your feeling that your previous interaction with me makes you "perhaps" prejudiced is (perhaps) an astute observation.
Secondly, there is no "attempt to predict what the Census will say" as you say - all the article says is: "The 2010 U.S. Census results, to be released by the end of 2011, are expected to reflect a more current official estimate on the number of Azerbaijanis in the U.S." How's that a "prediction"? Naturally, a 2010 Census would give figures up till 2010 - more current than 2000 figures. How's that an "attempt to predict"? Although, Census results can only show an increase as is clear from the cited facts, such as annual statistics of naturalizations between 2000 and 2010 (the years of Census) and the fact of natural growth (more births over deaths) typicaly for this community. However, since it can border on WP:OR, it can be re-phrased, and I will do so to alleviate any possible concerns. Again, you could have simply re-phrased just one sentence to make a good-faith edit instead of removing a huge block of sourced material like you did.
Thirdly, there are virtually no "Azerbaijani sources" cited - some 95% of sources are American newspapers, news sources and other U.S. government, media and NGO sources. Only one source is from an Azerbaijani source - an article by Dr. Paul Goble, an American citizen, ex-CIA analyst and RFE/RL high ranking executive, that was published by the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy.
Yet even if there would have been many Azerbaijani sources - that's OK, too, as the article is about Azerbaijani-Americans, and naturally, Azerbaijanis would research that topic most. Sounds quite logical, don't you think? I think it's natural that Italian Coppolla makes films about Italian culture, Jewish Spielberg about Jews, Scottish Gibson about Scotts, Nobel-prize winning Turkish author Pamuk writing about Turks, Russian authors writing about Russians, Arab-American Dr. Zogby famous for his research on Arab-American community, etc.
If by "Azerbaijani sources" you mean the fact that Azerbaijani-Americans were interviewed or published by the U.S. newspapers and sources - so? Is that prohibited? Who else should give interviews, or know more about their own community - the people themselves, or someone else? How's a statement from John Doe about Azerbaijani-Americans any more reliable than a statement from a Azer (a typical Azerbaijani name) about Irish-Americans or a statement from Hans (a Germanic name) about African-Americans, or Jose (Hispanic name) about Chinese-Americans?
Fourth, the claim "general sources about undercounting in the census, with no mention of application to Azerbaijanis" and that being "non-reliable cites" is really a wild overstretch. All these sources clearly state that Census undercount affects primarily minorities (as well as poor, which many immigrant minorities are in the their first 10 years of life, before earning more income than average citizens, and children, which affects everyone). None of the census undercount studies need to cite all the ethnic groups ("minorities") by name in order to be valid sources for citing in Wikipedia. It's enough that they all concur that minorities, especially immigrant minorities, are particularly affected by this, and then proceed to cite several cases, such as undercount of Brooklyn, NY residents (where a large number of Azerbaijani-Americans lives), or undercount of Iranian-American community (which is very close to the Azerbaijani-American community as is proven by multiple sources).
Fifth, you don't know what "Boro Prez" does or signs. If you visit all their websites or call them, you will find out that 1) they don't always issue such documents, and can refuse, and do refuse all the time; 2) they do their own research and verification. But more importantly, they, being a government source, are a reliable and verifiable source. And we have not one, but three (3) such government proclamations. It's just as reliable as a census, for example, since we already have shown that census routinely undercounts, and then shown the State Department and the White House ignore the US Census figures and cite much larger figures for the, for example, Iranian-American community (e.g., if the 2000 census reports smth like 338,000 Iranian-Americans, then White House and State Department say there are 2 million Iranian-Americans). --Saygi1 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re-phrased some of the sentences in the new version, along with restoring the paragraph with 18 valuable, reliable and verifiable sources that BMK blanked out [40]. Also, per the Census undercount discussion, note that I added 3 new US Census Bureau studies on the undercount as well as one study of the effect of undercount on the US Congress and one testimony in the US Senate about the Census 2010. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did not remove it per WP:CRYSTAL as you try to claim again, as there are no speculations there, and you could have easily discussed it with specifics on the Talk page and then re-worded it. You removed it per WP:REVENGE and WP:VINDICTIVE PERSON, pure and simple. You removed, once again, a lot of sourced information that several other editors and admins have not removed over the past month - and they can read and think, too. So please, stop your malicious editing, especially since you admit on your own talk page that "the topic area is so far afield from my natural haunting grounds", i.e,. a WP:LACK. Add to that WP:BATHWATER and WP:RUSH although they are about deleting the whole article, and in this case, half of the article. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making this comment here, as you were the administrator who has previously dealt with the disruptions of Saygi1. Please note that this user, Saygi1, continues disrupt articles that in the Azerbaijan topical area, despite the fact that this area is subject to several ArbCom cases. He continues to edit-war and remove a dispute tag from a disputed article, without a consensus on the talk page [41]. He's unilaterally removed the dispute tag 5 times now, and despite objections several other editors on the talk page.[42] I've raised the issue of Saygi1's disruptive conduct here[43] and here[44], and as you can see, those two Wikipedians also agree that there is an issue with Saygi1's conduct and behavior in general. A WP:SPA by the name of User:5aul is also making blind sweeping reverts on the same page, and removing the tag, without as much as an edit summary.[45] I suspect the latter of being the meatpuppet of Saygi1 who himself is most likely an ArbCom sanction-evading sock-puppet/reincarnation of an old user, given the fact that he was editing at an expert level of familiarity with complicated Wikipedia codes from the get-go, and that this topical area was subject of several ArbCom, and most regular Azerbaijani editors have bee subject to such sanctions. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdo777, I've objected to your edit warring and malicious editing numerous times as well, such as here [46] and here [47]. So I've complained plenty about your bad faith and groundless placement of a tag that has been disputed and reverted by other editors. You never substantiated your disruptive actions. You talk much about some meat- sock-puppets, are you one yourself? Because an editor who collaborates with you has been coming and helping to revert the page on your behalf before. I don't know what so impressed you in my "expert level of familiarity with complicated Wikipedia codes" - I am greatly honored, but what codes are complicated? I know far more complicated codes than Wikipedia, so wouldn't consider it "complicated". As of Arbcom - I've checked it, it's about Azerbaijan and Armenia, two nation-states and the pages and articles that are directly related to them. The article Azerbaijani American is not related to it any more than Armenian American. Also, when I placed the dispute tag on Iranian American, and substantiated it in the talk page, your friends removed it still. In general, please substantiate your edits and your complaints - don't just throw everything you have hoping it will "stick". And why are you on this page anyway? --Saygi1 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom in question[48] covers ALL TOPICS THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with Azerbaijan, which includes Azerbaijani-Americans. And for the record, you've just acknowledged that you're aware of the ArbCom in question, which should save the admins the trouble of warning you about it, before applying the sanctions to you. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kurdo777, I've become aware of it from your constant reminders of it on all the boards, and no, it doesn't apply in this case, as nowhere in the ArbCom does it say that. The articles have to be directly and completely relevant to both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in this case, it is neither directly relevant to Armenia, nor is it really that directly related to Azerbaijan. Otherwise, one can claim that pages about IMF, WorldBank, FIFA, and anything else that has Azerbaijan's membership (and incidentally, Armenia's) should all be part of the ArbCom, and that's just not the case. By the way, I hope you understand that your edits of anything directly relevant to Azerbaijan and Armenia falls under the Arbcom? --Saygi1 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saygi1 - you are very evidently trying to advance some POV related to Azerbaijan, Azerbaijanis, or similar. AS Kurdo777 points out, you are in danger of falling foul of these sanctions. I recommend that you be very careful to edit neutrally and explain openly any point you are trying to make, to avoid being misconstrued. Elen on the Roads:talk to me21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elen on the Roads, but user Kurdo777 has shown his POV and true intentions on several other pages, which I brought to his and admins' attention. I don't know what POV related to Azerbaijan/Azerbaijanis or similar have I ever advanced on the page Azerbaijani American aside from expanding and improving the article with a huge number of verifiable sources (95% US sources, by the way). Unfortunately, I have to say that Kurdo777 is editing in bad faith, and has never once contributed anything positive to the article in question, as he seems to be interested in letting that article rot and just edit war and disrupt (I've said it to him many times, and he never denied it, by the way). --Saygi1 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saygi1 totally ignored you warning. He is now taken his disruption to a whole new level, and has engaged in WP:Hounding, following me and Takabeg with whom he has a dispute on Azerbaijani-Americans, to pages he's never edited before, making reverts and borderline personal attacks in edit summaries/talk page comments.[49][50][51] How long before this kind of obvious WP:Disruption by a POV-pushing WP:SPA is dealt with? Do you really think this user was a new user when he signed up? please just take a look at his very first five edits. [52] He was quite familiar with complicated wiki codes, like making redirects, within an hour of registering to Wikipedia. Not to mention that he umped into a hot spot to edit-war right after creating this username? And he's been making reverts and causing disruption all over Wiki ever since. Doesn't this raise any red flags? Where does the WP:AGF end and common sense begin? Kurdo777 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdo777, since you are making many reverts and undiscussed, groundless removals of information per your POV view in Azerbaijani American, all I had to do was look at your list of last "contributions" (as Wikipedia easily allows and encourages to do) and see this pattern repeat again and again on other Azerbaijani-related articles. Shows that you are onto something. It's not "hounding" as I haven't followed or reverted all your edits, only a small fraction. Every single restoration of the article back to its normal state is because you failed to substantiate your bad faith edits that run counter to evidence and facts. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, unfortunately I've deleted everything; the only interesting parts were those I posted on the talkpage though. The rest was a long-winded explanation of how he'd tried his best to edit along the lines of policy (which of course he hadn't). To be fair, he did offer at one point to suggest that if he was unblocked he'd post all his suggested changes on talk pages, though. Black Kite (t)(c)06:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can forward some which I received. If they are of any interest. I'm travelling, now in Spain, and am not in a position to evaluate. Lugnad (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets hope it gets picked up. He posted an unblock request for one of the IPs at unblock-l that was totally off the wall as well - it started "'Elen of the Roads is rather naive as there is a simple way to determine what the fictitious Jesus really is.' Jesus is a Jew. Jews attend Saturday Synagogues. Synagogues are the Synagogues of Satan as per Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 so Jesus is the son of Satan. Period, as you say." and went on for three pages. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Elen. I have recently filed an RfC on Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I would prefer it to be a productive RfC - and as such I would like to adhere to one of his requests that you confirm there is a basis for dispute. I am not asking you to endorse or oppose the summary, though you are welcome to, I would just like you to confirm that this not a frivolous RfC. WormTT· (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elen, my priority was that Kiefer might actually be a willing participant, and make the whole thing actually a worthwhile use of the community's (and my) time. Seems he may not be, in which case the RfC will proceed without him, but at least I've tried. WormTT· (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry Guy, I was merely repeating my advice given to Kiefer.Wolfowitz previously, when I advised him to engage with a more informal dispute resolution process. As predicted then, his attempts to ignore/stonewall the issue did not turn out well - look, here we are at a RfC. Kiefer's bizarre argument (made two months ago as well [53]) that he cannot attend to the RfC for two months, but intends to continue to edit freely during that time, are not going to sit well with anyone. It's certainly not a threat from me, as I won't be making any kind of decision relating to the RfC, but in my experience an individual who ignores dispute resolution processes and persists in the problematic behaviour (important point - if the subject chooses not to attend in person, but takes the message away, then of course that may stop further problems) tends to find themselves summarily blocked or banned at WP:ANI. Kiefer needs to see dispute resolution in a different light - he's not dealing with editors who are rabidly against him (Worm and I thought well of him until this blew up in August) and if he engaged with the community, it could probably be all hashed out to every one's benefit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it is a second offence then! I can likewise guarantee that not a single Arbcom subcommittee will get done over for 15 bob a week. That's not a threat, but an offer of help and support :)
I do not doubt your sincerely belief that you are advising Kiefer in his best interests, but that does not make coercion acceptable. Furthermore, in your reply, you not only presume to know what is best for Kiefer, but also that you know what may or may not "sit well" with the entire editing community! That diverse community ranges from editors for whom Wikipedia is an online roleplaying game to those who actually come here to contribute significant content. It is the latter kind of editor that has my respect, and if an editor like Kiefer chooses to spend his volunteered leisure time improving articles rather than engaging in playground politics, then that sits very well with me. Any negative consequences of such a choice reflect badly on Wikipedia, not the editor. Geometry guy18:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if he decided to ignore the entire proceedings but stuck to editing articles rather than fussing about what other editors have on their userpages and stopped taking the piss out of people's usernames when it clearly annoys them, half of this would go away immediately. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But an important one, and a subject that Wikipedia is ill-equipped to handle. It cannot even handle internal disagreement about whether minors should be admins. That aside, thank you for your concise summary of the editing issues you feel KW needs to address. However, no dispute is entirely one-sided: can you also summarize the issues you believe other editors need to address to restore normal working relations? Geometry guy20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in Worm's case he was genuinely nonplussed that his attempts to resolve things amicably got the reception that they did - Kiefer basically treated him like a junior tick and told him to run along and stop bothering his elders and betters. Worm waited to see if he would stop the behaviour that he perceived as a problem, and raised this when he was of the opinion that he hadn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, you have not answered the question. I am not asking you to sympathize with Worm here. Maybe he was an innocent bystander who got caught up in events, and did the right thingTM.
Instead, I am asking for your concise summary of issues that other editors need to address (Demiurge, for example?). If you believe that no other editor has even been at minor fault at any stage and that no other editor has anything to learn from the dispute, then you are at liberty to state that view. Geometry guy21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry guy, this RfC has a large component about how Kiefer behaves towards other people who are not the filing parties. I appreciate that there may be an element of 'when did you stop beating your wife here', but if he wasn't obsessing over the age of certain users and making accusations without supporting evidence, then there would be no reason for the filing parties to interact with him over these issues. If he hadn't behaved like such an arrogant sod (just going on what he typed into the edit box - I've no idea what he's actually like as I've never met him) this could have been sorted out long ago. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey Elen, you must be in politics, as you still haven't answered the question. I didn't say "filing parties". In any dispute it takes two to tango, but rather than showing leadership in dispute resolution, you take a one-sided position, make pointless arguments using counterfactuals, and refer to one party as (oh lets be very careful here per WP:NPA "behaving like") an arrogant sod. Still very disappointed, Geometry guy21:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think RfC/U is a structurally flawed process, and my view of it is far more cynical than you imagine. It sets up an asymmetrical relation between involved parties, putting one user on the defensive, while encouraging others to justify the need for the RfC/U by prosecuting their case vigorously. I have no expectations of such a process and would not recommend anyone who does not have a strong masochistic streak to subject themselves to it.
However, you refer to RfC/U as "dispute resolution" and as something beneficial that KW should be "encouraged to engage with" in his own "best interests". So is an RfC/U for dispute resolution, or dispute escalation? Is it a way to help parties reach mutually understanding and agreement with the help of impartial outside observers, or is it a village stocks for slinging mud at arrogant sods and a tick-box on the road to arbitration? Those who claim to believe in the former should at the very least act like they do. In this respect, I find Worm TT's approach to the RfC more admirable and convincing than your own. Geometry guy22:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has the potential to be either. More collegial editors will probably "settle out of court" and avoid things ever getting to this stage, more combative editors will just have a row at this stage, and eventually end up at Arbcom. I'm not sure anyone ever goes away happy, on any side, but sometimes it does defuse a situation, either because the subject changes behaviour/avoids that area/stays away from that person or because the filing party is persuaded that it is not a serious problem really. Sometimes what happens is that the subject brings all their friends, ignores the process, or writes walls of impenetrable text, and the matter goes away for a while, until it blows up and they find themselves banned. Sometimes it is obvious that the filing party is acting in incredibly bad faith, and that blows up in their face. So no, not perfect. But then perfection is only for Allah, or so they say. The rest of us are just human. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is off-topic to the extent that I was brought to the RfC via KWs talk page, not because of any WikiProject notice. My contact with him is primary as a reviewer who occasionally reviews technical content: KW currently has an article at FAC which I extensively and critically reviewed over the weekend. Geometry guy22:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)...and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics. The vast majority of early contributors are related to these three projects. I did consider mentioning it at the time, but the point of the RfC was to see the community's point of view. David Eppstein's comment, whilst acting as a lighting rod, is a very fair comment - we don't want a lynching here and if Kiefer feels more willing to discuss the issues knowing that a lynching isn't the purpose, then I think it will be a positive outcome.
Having said that, Kiefer's latest response doesn't fill me with confidence. I understand he's travelling for a week, so perhaps he'll have more time to address the concerns after that period... WormTT· (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too have noticed that it was mostly editors from those two projects who comment under the view: "I have no opinion on the political disputes described here, but Wolfowitz has performed very valuable service to the encyclopedia bringing mathematical articles [...]". Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism was not notified however, even though a large part of the dispute was on the pages Socialist Party USA. So it does appear that WP:CANVASSing rules were deliberately bent or ignored by KW. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider it canvassing to put a neutral notice there, if editors from that project were involved. On another note, I have removed the outrageous sentence from his last comment - I know he probably thought it was funny, but it doesn't meet any definition of humorous in these circumstances. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses. First, I should be informed of discussions like this. Second, some of this discussion would be better at the RfC or its talk page.
Third, I do not "obsess about ages", but I am concerned about minors as administrators, and I consistently take the most paternalistic/responsible (your choice) position in discussions about vulnerable persons. Tough that some dislike this position.
Fourth, the articles related to American socialism were in terrible states when I found them, although they had been worse 5 years ago, and so the relevant projects were immediately suspect as dysfunctional/nonfunctional. Those projects have been useless when I have asked for help related to e.g. Tom Kahn; our brothers and sisters at the LGBT project provided useful feedback for it. I have no reason to expect that an RfC notice at the non--high-functional projects would generate feedback, let alone competent feedback.
Finally, even here, at an ArbCom member's talk page, and at an RfC, "Have mörser, will travel" violates WP:AGF with impunity. At least, he has been ignored (at the RfC 07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)). Kiefer.Wolfowitz22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would agree that this discussion would be better at the RfC talkpage. I can move the whole shebang over there if you wish. As to why you weren't informed of the discussion, I suggest you ask Geometry Guy, as he is the one asking the questions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is very disingenuous. I did not start this thread, nor am I responsible for the portion of it questioning KW's good faith and accusing him of canvassing. Geometry guy23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, reply to KW) Quite. And let me add a couple of observations of my own.
It is absurd to refer to KW placing a neutral note on WikiProjects where he as contributed as a WP:CANVASS violation. A neutrally-worded notice to a non-partisan audience is not canvassing. If RfC/U is for dispute resolution, not dispute escalation, then inviting comments from other editors familiar with the user's editing should be helpful, not harmful.
"The trouble is that he doesn't fall out with the Maths people". The trouble??!! I'm aghast at the attitude: "okay, so lets try and find some people he does fall out with"! Dispute resolution, or escalation?
Moerser, writing like this only reduces your credibility. You should try to find counter-examples to statements before pressing the submit button, particularly when you willfully violate WP:AGF despite complaints.
For example, in the last days, one of the few articles I contributed to was Socialist Party of America, where I suggested that the editor I reverted please contact User:Orange Mike, who is an honest and knowledgeable person who strongly disliked ("I was not impressed") my initial edits on SDUSA. (I have recommended that people contact Orange Mike before this RfC/U.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it should be moved to the talk page of the RfC. However, "Have Moeser, Will Travel" should consider deleting remarks that can be viewed as non-constructive. Kiefer.Wolfowitz07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm horribly busy today, so I doubt I'll be able comment much anywhere, but I wanted to say that I agree that it should be moved to the RfC talk page - as it is a discussion of the RfC, and anyone participating should also be aware. WormTT· (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1966 isn't sourced either. The article says he came to Mumbai in 1961 to start a career in the music business, spent his first few years singing jingles, then got a job singing in a film Dharati Na Chhoru for which no date is given. On that basis, I'd say he was active in the music business from 1961 and the other chap is right. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Film scores" section of the article his first work is attributed to the film "Bahuroopi" (year 1966) anyway, when I wrote this section - that part "he came to Mumbai in 1961..." was not there. Based on that 1961 may be treated as his career starting year, but if there is any citation of any of his works done in 1961 or atleast the mention that he had come to Mumbai in 1961 that'd have been more conclusive. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, yes that does make a difference. What it really needs is more references generally. Hopefully a few more detailed write ups might appear in the wake of his recent death that give a reliable source for some of the information. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Up to the missing question mark, the first sentence is a question, asking for views, and doesn't explicitly state a view. The second sentence is inviting responses from those with different views, not endorsements. If you would like other editors to respond to and discuss the question you raise, I would ask you to refactor it as a thread on the RfC/U talk page.
Thanks for adding diffs to your statement, but please note that in your enthusiasm you have used one diff three times, and another diff twice. The first diff (used twice) only supports the mention of "weird, multi-syllable names", not the mocking of them. The second diff links only to an edit window, which was presumably not your intention. Geometry guy12:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, festina lente. More haste, less speed as they say - also if being handy with the Mediawiki interface was a requirement, I'd never have been allowed in. Too many tabs open at once, I dare say - when I get a moment, I'll have a go at fixing it, but I only have about 15 minutes between now and midnight. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do not think this discussion was all about me but it did stem from a previous requestion for mediation that I started and did result in me being linked to individuals who had threatened other Wikipedia users.Hermiod (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unfortunate that some loose statements suggested a link, as the lot carrying on like that are all new or IP editors and most seem connected to one organisation/set of organisations. At the same time, you are coming across as if every single statement is directed at you, and it definitely isn't. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was more I should have perhaps repeatedly reiterated in my posts to Wiqi55, but I'd said it numerous times before on the article's talk page and on AN/I. Penom made it very clear (POV pushing and improperly using sources) why he was removing the content. Perhaps didn't reiterate that clearly enough in my later posts to Wiqi55? I thought I had when I indicated I thought his (Wiqi55's) complaints about the edit summaries, based on lengthy talk page discussions on the matters, indicated it was a content/POV/source mischaracterization issue. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that you used the DR noticeboard format on ANI. At ANI it is better to come in with a simple, short post with diffs, because ANI is intended solely for incidents requiring some kind of admin action. So "there's an edit war going on between Foo and Bar" is fine (although it belongs at the edit warring board), but your lengthy expose suffered from tl:dr unfortunately, and I just picked up on one bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hermiod(talk·contribs·count·logs·page moves·block log) Hermiod's behaviour is becoming untenable at the ANi thread[55] as well as at the talk:Men's rights page[56]. Constant spurious accusations of bad faith[57][58][59], ad hominem remarks & assumptions of bad faith[60][61][62][63][64], off topic commentry[65][66], and weak appeals to WP:IAR[67][68], in what is now becoming an increasingly tendentious cycle of WP:IDONTLIKEIT remarks[69][70][71] and a refusal to hear the warnings that have been given (see multiple balnkings by user of their talk page[72][73][74]). It's worth noting also that Hermiod was canvassed about this by Jayhammers[75]. BTW all diffs here of Hermiod's behaviour (other than his talk space blanking) are no older than 36 hours (olderst posted here 20:47 Oct 18 2011(UTC))--Caililtalk08:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If the article probation proposal comes off, he should be considerably reigned in, but I'm not convinced there is enough egregiously blockable material there yet, given the fuss it will cause in some quarters. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably already know I added LGBT information to the romance films article. I have edited and resubmitted my information and hope you will look at my attempt at an improvemenet. You are right that not all LGBT films are romance and I clarified that in the article now. Thank you for contributing so much to wikipedia.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must have had a problem with the interface. What's in the article now isn't even in English - it seems to have scrambled all the words. And it still doesn't belong under the heading Subgenre - it isn't a subgenre of Romance films, romance films are a subgenre of LGBT films. Let me see what I can do. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a huge difference between Jewish, Black and other ethnic films as these minorities do not deal with the concept of who one loves. I tried to rephrase what I put in to state that not all LGBT films are romance but as of now I still think that the article has a really heavy heterosexist bias and am trying to change that. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain it better. Many (and perhaps most) LGBT films deal with romance. There are many LGBT romance films. This is because the LGBT culture is so interconnected with who one is attracted to. Black films and Jewish films are about the skin color and culture of the characters and I would say there are far fewer Black and Jewish films about romance than LGBT films about romance.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I agree that the article needs to represent better that there are lesbian, gay & etc romances as well, but shoehorning that line in subgenres is not the way to do it. Write a paragraph about it - you can include if you like such things as the controversy about lesbian romance in particular being taken up into mainstream Hollywood, but using straight actresses (The Guardian), and how unusual it is for a homosexual love story to successfully cross over (The Independent). These two sources took me a couple of minutes to find, so I'm sure there are more on the subject. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) This individual (blocked indefinitely for a bizarre legal threat at the AN/I board that was later retracted, sort of) contacted my talk page for their first edit after nearly two weeks of not editing to "complain" that I wasn't being sensitive to possible "gender-neutral" individuals by using the wrong pronouns, when all I had ever done was point out (a while ago) the hypocrisy of them making such a claim when they self-identified as being "Unfortunately Male :(" on their own userpage. I'm pretty sure I know what the angle is here, and I will certainly be taking an interest in this editor's continued activities after my unwarranted lecture, as well as their past and continued problems editing in a non-disruptive manner. Doctalk04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to explain what would actually be an encyclopaedic addition to the article, because if they just keep adding that random broken english, all they will end up is blocked. Thanks for the heads-up about the sock - no idea why they didn't get a short block at that time, but something to keep an eye out for perhaps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you. I added a rather important item to a piece of text that you had previously endorsed. (Important to me because I felt this was the biggest problem of them all - I should have added it way earlier.) Specifically, I made this change. I assumed you would have no disagreement with that addition, but for form's sake I felt I should inform you of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have reverted this edit here because it doesn't seem to explain what you were trying to do. You might be looking for {{declined}} --> Declined. -- DQ (t) (e)15:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DQ. No, in fact I was looking for the inconclusive template. This guy edits from so many locations and machines that you can't say for definite that the other editor isn't him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Yeah, I had a brain fart, couldn't think of the word and kept previewing weird combos of not clear to try and remember what it was. Then I accidentally hit save.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Racepacket is under a one-year ArbCom ban. Before the ban was enacted (but related to the dispute), I'd promised to start an RFC on GA-related advice pages and listen to his perspective. I've assumed that since bans don't extend to the user's own talk page (except in case of talk page abuse), it would be okay for me to copy his comments over to the RFC, but I wanted to make sure that I wouldn't be inadvertently getting him into trouble before I did so. My request for his view is at User talk:Racepacket#RFC_started; the RFC is at WT:WPGA. Is it okay for me to copy over or link to his reply? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he's banned, he can't edit at all, even his talkpage. Talkpages of banned editors are usually locked - see for example User:Tenmei. I think it was not always thus, but we had a small spate of banned editors running campaigns from their talkpages. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the middle of my automatic mea culpa for not reading the most recent version of the policy before posting my invitation there, I went and looked it up. Are you sure that's the actual policy? The closest WP:BAN comes to that is to say that "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page" (emphasis mine). Do we need to see about amending the policy, or is this something that you think ought to be handled case-by-case? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i stoped for interwiki for templates.please unblock it because it doing another jobs as global bot.
also i used standard code last edition (yesterday update). Reza1615 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who in the name are you Elen of the Roads? I researched the results of this antivirus on every single website and I tested it myself. I am a rater at Pc mag, cnet, and Pc world. I actually calculated the percentage of threats used and made. I averaged them out with other scores and compared mine with the editor. Unlike you, I don't put links that lead to this same page and I can hack and create programs of lots of things I want. My IQ is 157. I can give you the page to prove it. I did the reviewing myself and created the image from the actual interface itself. These actual antiviruses blocked and removed like I wrote. I think that you unfairly removed my page for speedy Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almoria (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, this was clearly not spam, not G11, an the way to deal with OR is not to summarily delete the whole article. I haven't checked the other article by the same editor that was deleted, but it appears to be on a similar subject. RichFarmbrough, 18:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hello Elen. Please, take a look at the initial revision of the proposed article. You can also check deleted contributions and block log of the creator, user Wenatex Australia (talk·contribs). I don't think they are here to build an encyclopedia. I delete promotional articles/block spam accounts on daily basis and I have a strange feeling that spamming is a more and more popular discipline (I hope I'm not paranoid or too pedantic :)). Usually I check their contributions and nominate for deletion any advert, as I did in this case. But I don't think the page could seriously damage Wikipedia. Btw, not only "attack pages and similar bad faith submissions" can be speedily deleted. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not wasted more time with the diffs. You or anybody can reformat my quotations as diffs, with my blessings. Please remember that I am writing against 3-4 editors (including 2 editors who spent months writing the RfC).
... and that the reason the start of the RfC/U was delayed for months, was that you, Kiefer, requesteddemanded such a delay!
If you refuse to heed polite requests not to copy-paste other people's signatures haphazardly all over Wikipedia, in a potentially misleading way, then I suggest that rather than expecting other editors to clean up after you by turning your pasta into diffs, they should be permitted to just remove the potentially misleading material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I approach you with this as an interested party in the recent WP:AN/I thread regarding Δ and as a member of ArbCom. I am seeking your advice as such. If you would prefer to keep your responses to e-mail, you may e-mail me directly.
As you're aware, Δ was blocked for supposedly conducting pattern edits. The edits of the type in question had been reviewed a month earlier and not been found to be a pattern (1). Another admin (2) has claimed the intent of the restrictions were to get Δ out of maintenance tasks, and get him to create articles and/or create content. An editor (3) has raised issue that the requests being made at WP:VPR on Δ's behalf (and approved by him) are in bad faith, pointy, and gamey. That's a lose-lose situation; if the requests aren't made, he's in violation, if the requests are made it's in bad faith. Anything Δ does is now being viewed as a pattern, with no time frame limitation on the definition of pattern, no clarification on the massive grey area of what "pattern" means. To top this all off, and arguably the most problematic of all this is that there is now sufficient opposition in the form of blanket opposition to all of the current 11 proposals being made that none of them will gain consensus. There are another 24 types of edits for which I'm intending on making requests at WP:VPR on Δ's behalf. It won't matter. The effect of this is that Δ is no longer permitted to edit in mainspace. This is not what was written into his sanctions. ArbCom has not produced any such sanction against him. Yet, that is now the de facto situation. Why? Because a vocal enough group has turned the proposals into a voting fest (which it never should have been in the first place) and prevented any of the proposals from moving forward.
This situation is untenable.
I believe it is time for ArbCom to step in. The community has proven itself singularly incapable of managing this fracas. At every occasion that concerns arise regarding Δ, it descends into mayhem. There is no chance for productive discourse to bring about positive, pro-wiki solutions. The community has lost the ability to dispassionately assess any issue regarding Δ.
Δ has done an enormous amount of positive work here. I do not for a moment discount that some of his work has created serious problems here. But, all of those problems have been taken into account across a dizzying array of threads. The shakeout of it all is that Δ is still allowed to edit here. The community has not banned him from the site, though they are certainly capable of doing so as the recent TreasuryTag fracas shows. Given that, he has the privilege of editing here, within his restrictions, and such privilege has not been revoked. Yet, because the community is singularly incapable of discussing this topic now, there is a de facto ban on his editing (at least in mainspace), as the response to the requests at WP:VPR show.
I am uncertain as to what to do. People involved in this, including myself, tend to be passionate in their arguments. I think it would be best if there was a group of people, say six to eight, who were a committee charged with approving tasks Δ can do. Unfortunately, I think such people would need to have no prior involvement. Finding such a group of people would be difficult. But, I have no better ideas. I'm at a loss as to what to do. The "easy" solution is to simply ban Δ from the site. That would require the least effort. But, it's the wrong choice, and would set a standard that if enough people get mad at someone, it doesn't matter if that someone is right or not, the people who get mad will win. That's ochlocracy, and it's not what Wikipedia is about.
I do think it needs to be made clear, somewhere, that Δ does have the privilege of editing, and barring specific sanction against him for a specific type of edit (such as ArbCom's June sanction regarding NFCC enforcement), he can edit. But, the wording of his editing restrictions (4) is such that if there's an opposition, to anything he does, he has to get consensus to do it. I think that needs to be inverted; there needs to be consensus to stop him from doing it. That at least would place a higher burden on the ochlocracy to prove their stance.
1: I'm not calling the blocking admin's actions in question here. I'm wishing to highlight the disagreement as to what constitutes a pattern.
2: It doesn't matter who the admin is, but if you need it I can provide diffs
3: Again, it doesn't matter who but I can provide diffs.
4: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community
After some more thought about this, I think a key issue in all of this is that the controversy itself has become a serious problem. It has become impossible for there to be any productive path by which Δ can edit. The controversy, which has existed for years now, is unstoppable. Yes, Δ has had a hand in that controversy. But, with the existence of the controversy and it being so unsolvable by the community, there is no possible path by which Δ can prove he has rehabilitated himself. This last block is proof positive of that. He was told it wasn't a pattern, and a month later blocked for it being a pattern. The resulting controversy, which Δ has said almost nothing about, has generated more than 20,000 words of debate, more than 60 pages of controversy. The situation has become one where it is like a person walking into a room of a hundred Wikipedians and saying "Delta" and the whole room turning into pandemonium, whether Δ did anything or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A more microcosmal demonstration of this is here. Δ did not start that thread, it wasn't initiated by something he did, and he hasn't contributed to it. Yet, the outcome of it in less than 24 hours is a slew of proposals across 14 editors and a picture so muddy as to be completely useless in moving in ANY direction, much less a positive one. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, don't take this hard. I don't know the chap, that's the reason for these questions. You may prefer to reply by email to the first one.
Does he have some kind of learning disability that causes him to have all these problems -
- obsessed with minutia
- unable to interact well with other people
- must carry out repetitive activities.
I only ask because if he does, it would shut out a whole set of suggestions
Does he edit without scripts as well as with them? I thought he was a member of Milhist at one point.
What does he do/what has he done in the past that has made a significant contribution to the project. There must be significant contribution - people presumably aren't just supporting him for sentimental reasons.
It strikes me that the suggestions were bound to fail because they look like make-work for someone who is obsessed with editing but can't do anything useful. I don't think you meant to give that impression, so we need to look at a larger picture of how he can contribute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen - I thought you might appreciate a tasty snack and a break. It seems as if you have been a bit wiki-stressed/jumpy lately. I find it easy to lose a sense of perspective if I get too wrapped up in things on Wikipedia and always come back refreshed after a break!
Thank you for the stroopwaffles. The virtual ones are so great because they are of course sugar free. Things are stressed in real life at the moment - I work for an English local authority, and we are shedding about 1/3 of our staff, and there's lots of stuff around that, and last week was a bit of a nightmare. I edit Wikipedia to get away from that, but if you think it's spilling over, perhaps I ought to back off a bit and stick to rescuing genuine articles from the clutches of new page patrollers who don't understand what A7 factually says.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand well both real life stress, and editing Wikipedia to get away from it ("been there, done that", as they say!). Things are a bit rough in the UK public sector at the moment, aren't they? My advice for maximum relaxation would be to concentrate more editing time in areas that make you feel comfortable and good. Then the occasional edits you make in more stressful environments will be more positive, more valuable, and more valued. On Wikipedia misunderstandings and miscommunications can arise and escalate much more easily than IRL, but that also means that they can sometimes be easier to resolve; the opportunity to resolve disagreements and misundestandings is something I find very rewarding about contributing here. Geometry guy22:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen! I struck through the evil paragraph on Sandy's page. I am sorry to read that you have had to be busy with such a difficult task, these last weeks. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz23:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated - that's very generous of you. Let's try for a cease fire - I don't think I'm making a positive contribution to the situation at the moment, so if I withdraw from the fray, would you just let me drop off the radar for a few days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen,
(ec)
Of course. We both could use a breather. :)
I am sorry for over-reacting and writing a hurtful paragraph. Had neither you nor Malleus replied, then I should have removed it.
The statistics are not that interesting to me, because I honestly can't see why domestic violence is even an issue when it comes to roller derby as it is a topic that really isn't covered by the sources. (Issues for women's sport tend to be really different than men's sport.) I can't even figure out where they got the idea that there is a connection. I attended the bout mentioned here. (And a number of other bouts featuring the Canberra Roller Derby League.) There wasn't any glorification of violence. People cheered/laughed when skaters fell down. The largest cheers were not for hard hits, but rather for good skating and good strategy when jammers managed to get around the pack. That has been a consistent feature of all matches I've seen. (Maybe this is a regional issue?) And yeah. I'm completely lost as to what the heck is going on with the topic that we're even taking it there. There just isn't the literature in the sport about this topic to even begin to make these connections. *babbles* The whole thing feels completely out of left field. (But I look at sport as a sport historian, sport sociologist and sport marketer.) Outside of wanting to re-iterate that there are no connections to porn and the model doesn't fit based on what appear to be incorrect, non-source supported beliefs, don't want to deal with it. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of that. I'm sure there are a good number of chaps that like to look at female athletes, and a hopefully much smaller subset turned on by real or imagined violence, but certainly from the small amount I know about it in the UK, that's not actually connected to the sport in any way [79] and [80] for instance. His statement about most domestic violence being initiated by women comes from an unpleasant subset of the "men's rights" movement that has been trolling here for the past couple of weeks, and made me instantly suspicious I'm afraid. And his statement about pornography and abuse warrants watching closely - it is a nasty myth put about in some quarters that child pornography is a victimless crime.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They mentioned the gendergap list somewhere, so I thought maybe it came from there and it was a good faith effort to improve the article. (And if we have men's rights supporters on the list, I feel even ickier.) I know that domestic violence is committed by women, but there isn't the same culture of violence from sport where research connects the two things together. I just wasn't willing to read the pornography comment because there is no connection in anything I've read. I was pulling out those sources last night on women in sport from both women's perspectives and main stream sport management texts and it just isn't there. --LauraHale (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Adelmang's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
hello, please see my response while i am struggling to understand the policy and may need to re-do certain edits that i just re-tried due to urgency of the situation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.23.184 (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As requested multiple times to all of your IP identities, PLEASE POST ON THE TALKPAGE OF THE ARTICLE. If you edit the article again without doing so, it is likely that the article will be protected to prevent amendment by IPs. Here are a few other points:-
If I have a source that says "Foo was arrested for burglary" and you have a source that says "Foo was arrested for burglary but the charges were later dropped", what you must NOT do is just alter the text I have put into the article and sourced to my source, to say that the charges were later dropped. This is because you would then be sourcing the information to a reference that does not say that. There are a number of things you can do, but you will need to be prepared to DISCUSS THEM AT Talk:Walid Phares.
You can remove my edit entirely, and replace it with one that says "Foo was arrested but the charges were dropped" and source it to your source - on the grounds that this is more complete information.
You can add "The charges were later dropped" after my edit saying he was arrested, and source that to your source.
You cannot just throw references into the article in the way that you keep doing. I have said this several times now, so please take some notice. You can discuss on the talkpage whether a reference is suitable.
In the article, as it is a biography of a living person and covered by our policy at WP:BLP, you must use the references to source text. You wrote a lot of text, please take the time to actually read WP:CITE to see how to make inline citations to your references in the text that you wrote. As long as you didn't copy and paste the long piece of text from a copyright source, you can add it as long as you include inline citations.
If you want to challenge whether someone else's source is sound, you must do it ON THE TALKPAGE - for example, if you don't think it is a valid news source. You can't just keep changing the article in the way that you have been. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear elen i really dont know how to use wikipedia . I have tried and spent quite a lot of time on it . I am making a request to delete my user profile and everything associated with it .
Best of luck withit . Its not accsible to me.
Are you the same person who created the Signdance theatre account? And are you really Isolte Avila. I would like to help, but I need the answer to these questions. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though Davis100 has continued his destructive ways on the Romeo discography page. Personally I feel he deserves a ban, but can you at least lock the page to prevent further vandalism from him? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who appears to be the vandal here. I have checked a fair bit of the info that Davis100 wants to add, and it is already in the album articles. I do not understand why you keep trying to delete it, but if you continue you are likely to get blocked again. This is a content dispute - stop calling him a vandal, because he isn't, and put something on the talk page to explain why you think there is something wrong with the information he is adding, because I can't see the problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Ellen, he keeps adding false RIAA certifications and sales (Lil Romeo at 2x platinum, Game Time at 2x platinum and Romeoland at gold) despite the fact that only his first album has a certification according to the RIAA website (Gold). He's also added false chart positions to God's Gift and Lottery despite the fact neither ever charted. Is that good enough? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[81] is the problem. It contains some of the duff information. But the RIAA certs are based on their own database, so definitely make a WP:RS. You'll see the consequence on his talkpage - keep an eye on it, as you may need to explain to another administrator at some point. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see that you are active are the moment. I've responded to a point at Talk:List_of_Ezhavas#Sources.2C_BLP_.26_notability and wonder if you could advise whether the third opinion process would be a valid route. No need to weigh in on the discussion itself, but you are an admin & have had very few dealings with me & so hopefully might at least be able to clarify whether my suggestion of WP:3 is a viable option - it is mostly IPs & so difficult to determine the "multiple editors" situation that 3O refers to. The points raised are also in previous threads on that page, but with less detail. The list itself is under semi-PP for the next 4 days.
Sorry to bother you like this but I am trying to avoid recourse to what are often perceived to be the "usual suspects" by IP editors in this particular area of WP. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I found to my surprise that I am being smeared by the same two individuals across Wikipedia. They are leaving unfounded and preposterous allegations to editors and basically clogging up the system. I have asked them to stop. They are not. How do I resolve this? --Kanovski (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what raised both your concern and Kanovski's concern, and have added a note on the article talkpage. I am glad it is resolved - I don't think there was bad faith involved. In future, you should find attention to WP:V and WP:UNDUE will resolve matters of this kind.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this thing won't happen again. I have asked both of them (BabbaQ and Kanovski) to stop discussing about this, so the problem will not getting weirder. DeshintaChandra (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen of the Roads! First I'd like to thank you for your very prompt response. As to the issue itself, I see that you've read up on some of it and given constructive remarks. By "some of it" I mean that a lot of relevant information has been removed from several pages. This issue was/is not a content dispute, per se, but a matter of hounding and deterrence from editing. When I opened a discussion about an article, I did not receive a reply on the article's talk page. Rather than answering my request for comments and discussing the question of possible libel, one user "BabbaQ" went straight to an administrator with serious allegations about me. When the admin ("Alexandria") replied that these accusations were unfounded, the user continued to try to create a faction against me, by making up every possible accusation to other admins and volunteer editors. The same user ("BabbaQ") also tried to coerce and lobbied the user "Desintachandra" with the words: "I hope you are with me on that." When I caught on to the slander that was going on unbeknownst to me, and confronted the faction about it, they came clean that the preposterous allegations had been proved unwarranted.
I was brought up with strong values about gossip, defamation and bullying. While anyone can exhibit moments of logical fallacies, or have trouble expressing themselves, I obviously get upset about being falsely accused on extremely thin grounds. I have now received one apology, not from "BabbaQ" but from user "Desintachandra" who have assured me that the hounding stops now. Hopefully, from now on I can go back to focusing on the actual article and editorial improvement, without further libel behind my back. Thank you for your time. PS: I observed that you've made some grammar remarks and style suggestions which I just could glance at for now. I may reply (if called for) when I am done with the two books and 662 pages that just landed on my table for copy editing and submission within four days. Best regards. --Kanovski (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid using legal terms such as slander and libel that only have meaning in the context of a potential legal action. I get it that you didn't like the speculation by the two other editors, but none of it amounted to slander or libel. Please read WP:NLT - our policy on legal threats. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your sage cautions regarding my recent misunderstanding with another Wiki editor. There really wasn’t any conflict, just a simple misunderstanding. In short, he thought (for reasons I now understand) that he was dealing with a jerk, when it fact he was dealing with a tech klutz! Although I have acquired an impressive amount of knowledge over the years to contribute to Wiki, I’m afraid like many folks of my generation my computer skills are not up to those of most younger people.
In regard to the libel issue, I must confess I wasn’t thinking in terms of another editor (person). I don’t even know who originally had inserted “ATC error” as a cause in the info box. I guess I just assumed that he or she had followed the Dutch investigators’ lead. I was really thinking of protecting the Wikipedia Foundation from a potential lawsuit. You must understand that “ATC” in this context refers to exactly two individuals. Although I might agree that there is little chance that these two men would read the article (if still alive) and that they (or their estates) would file suit, I hope that you and all would agree that we do not want Wiki to engage in such even if it could be done with impunity. Accusing two individuals of having contributed to the deaths of over five hundred people by way of negligence is, after all, a terrible accusation to make without substantial evidence in support.
No worries. If being good at markup was a requirement, they'd never have let me in. And N419 is a very reasonable editor, so I'm glad you guys managed to work out the problem so quickly.The safest thing, should you ever have a situation like that again, is to refer to WP:BLP - our policy on handling information about living persons. Saying that the report had been discredited/overturned and was a potential BLP issue - because as you say it does specifically refer just to these two people - would work just as well, and not cause any raised eyebrows. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find me a single newspaper or magazine article, internet article, or other secondary source about this organization. Any ex-brethren that cite it as an influence. Any failed ex-brethren that made scurrilous allegations even. Post here. If you find something, I'll put the article in your userspace to edit further. If not, go write about some species of fish, because it's got more chance of being notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:CLUB. I have no problem believing this organisation exists. However, I do not believe it is in any way notable, and a piece about a University of Nevada club on the University of Nevada website does nothing to dispel that view. Are any of your sources not connected with the club or the University? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to ask the same about a lot of the organizations listed on this page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_secret_societies_in_North_America". There are only about 3 or 4 of them that are notable. The rest are just like my organization that only are known on their campus and are only doing things on their campuses. I would really have to argue that my page should not be deleted if their pages are not. We have a membership that effects all of Nevada. We are a secret society, with notable members and have had an effect in the great state of Nevada. So please can you put my page back up on wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazarusCK (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do feel free to add Coffin and Keys to that article. I didn't know it existed, or I'd have suggested it earlier. You'll note that most of the societies mentioned don't have articles of their own, they don't need to be individually notable, as the overall topic (secret societies in US universities) is notable. If you need the text of your article to reuse, I can email it to you or put it in your userspace. You can then create Coffin and Keys as a redirect to that section of Collegiate secret societies in North America. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, i apologize if i disrespected you by not listening to you. I shouldn't have been impulsive. I should have just laid it off. I'm normally very polite and respectful to others even if they disagree with me, and under normal circumstances, don't lose it that easily. But that fellow's dishonest insinuations really got on my nerves. I was repulsed and found that very insulting. He did not misunderstand the edits. If he is an administrator, then he is definitely not stupid. He even agreed earlier that it was vandalism. In his response to you, he was just dishonestly defending that vandal's edits in order to discredit me. I would not have lost my temper still, except that what he said was really sick! He did it on purpose. He was subtly insulting me. I don't know what's wrong with that fellow. Joyson Noel Holla at me!16:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen,
you seem to be one of the more active admins on AN/I now, and you also seem to possess knowledge on the Central European region. So if you feel like it, please chime in at the wonderfully titled "Thinly covered racist tendencies & long term tendentious editing by Arcillaroja" [82] which seems to have stalled. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ12:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I retain my suspicious of the other two IPs that are within his "hemisphere" that you conveniently failed to have mentioned on the noticeboard in your comment, if you have any grievances about what I did, report my allegedly bad faith actions bout what I did elsewhere where it belongs instead of posting in a section about a past-block imposed due to an incorrect assumption that I was evading a block, I already made my statement on the relevant page, the material you are dragging up here does not belong there. Sheodred (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you, at ANI the behaviour of all parties may be examined, and this is what happened. There was really no basis for that SPI - you could have investigated where the IPs are from yourself (every IP page carries a WHOIS template), and the UK based IP is arguing on a completely different basis to Yworo. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP locator I use traced the IP to Bayonne, New Jersey. In double-checking it with a different locator, it indeed traces to Pittsburgh. In any event, I did not realize that I had checked the account creation block box; I thought I had left it blank. It seems that I was mistaken, so I apologize in that regard.
Given the nature of The Real World, and the fact that sexual activities are often given on the show, and the cast's sexual histories given in their bios (by themselves, after all, since this is the info they give when auditioning to be on the show), using an MTV bio page for that info was valid. Using your rationale, we'd have to delete A LOT of the material in the various Real World articles that is directly sourced to either the episodes in question or MTV's online episode summaries or bio pages. Now if a consensus of editors wants to remove it, then that's a legitimate procedure. But it was not the case when an anonymous editor removed it without attempting to contact me or anyone else at Wikipedia. In any event, engaging in grade school-level namecalling, as you did in your most recent message to me, is a clear violation of WP:Civility. Between that and your previous threat to me (neither behavior of which I've engaged in myself with you), you're not exactly following the site's policies. So please stop. Nightscream (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Action concerning PMAnderson for a likely breach of his ban
Thank you for the vote of confidence. I do have a concern that te ban/topic ban/block review process does not work well at all at ANI, and this incident indicates some of the problems. What might be done to improve it is a subject for a much longer discussion. As for PMA, I did obviously put a topic ban notification on his talkpage at the time. I feel it is up to a topic banned user whether or not they put a more permanent note in place - I'm not about to make them carry a leper's bell if they don't want to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen. Thanks for your input at the Mkat AN/I. As indicated, I'm fully supportive of these inadvertent copyvios being deleted or stubified, as appropriate. You asked if I could provide you with a list. But as you surmised given the age, 5 years ago and 50-80,000 edits ago, I don't recall specific edits.
While you haven't requested this, I'm happy to volunteer to look at old articles I created, and delete or fix copyvios where I see them. Do you think that would be helpful? If so, do you think it would be best for me to limit my support to that, inasmuch as I imagine it may be better to let an independent third party mark articles as "checked and OK"?
I think it would be hugely helpful if you started to work on checking for/fixing copyvios. Most of the community including those who work at CCI (which I have done in the past) prefer this solution to having to destroy articles by ripping everything out. It is often the case that these edits are from years ago, when the rules were more relaxed, rather than a deliberate attempt to commit copyright violation, and the support of the originating editor in these cases is hugely helpful. I suspect your pleas not to have information deleted would be far better received generally if you are offering to fix the problems, regardles of Mkat's involvement or not. You should not tick off items yourself I think (check this out with Moonriddengirl), but could create a subpage where you recorded articles you had checked and what you found.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So now, as in this complaint, Tony holds that the difference between Romanian and English is a technical aspect of English. Please have a word with him; if this becomes a formal complaint, I expect to appeal the ban - on the grounds that it is being used for harassment. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again. Please tell Tony to stay off my talkpage, unless he is required to post; I am tired of his inventing an interpretation of my ban with which only his faithfol followers agree; you will recall this discussion; Tony is again objecting to my answering a direct question, in this case one which has nothing to do with MOS. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for protecting Collis Potter Huntington, unfortunately the anonymous editor is at it again, changing Mr. Huntington's birthday from October to April for no known reason. The major sources about Mr. Huntington say his birthday was in October. One webpage with no citations says April. I don't know why some English anonymous editor continues to make this change over and over. I have not reverted his latest edit so you can see it. Please help!! Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the IP. See if it reoccurs - although I think it might as it appears to be 3 editors (either that or he moves around). Not sure how this can be a family member - all IPs geolocate to England. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You had indicated you might be willing to enforce the editing restriction for Rich Farmbrough. Here is some information about edits he made yesterday that violate the restriction by making capitalization changes that AWB does not make automatically.
I verfied at that these are not built into AWB ([90]). The only redirects that AWB will bypass by default are listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. When it does bypass them, it will leave the first letter with the same capitalization. The reason that R.F.'s AWB makes these changes is that he has programmed it to do them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time. I am not sure whether a waring wouldn't be enough, anyway, as a sort of closure to the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AN discussion was archived a day or two ago to here. The outcome was that the editing restriction is still in place. Unfortunately, R.F. is continuing to violate it. When you have a chance, could you look at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Violation_of_edit_restriction? The violations are objective in the sense that they directly contradict the wording of the sanction. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.
Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
Thank you for dealing with the most changing editors in all of the community and for occasionally setting me straight on portions of the tau of Wikipedia Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured I would ask you about this, since you are being level headed in the most recent AN/I discussion, and I have lot of respect for how you acted in an RfC/U we both participated in. I've about come to the conclusion that DIREKTOR is pretty much impossible to work with in terms of trying to reach consensus due to his basic incivility. Most recently DIREKTOR has accused me of section blanking without consensus when, in fact, the changes in question were the result of discussions in July and August. I readily admit that much of my frustration is due to my belief that DIREKTOR is determined to undo what I regard as good work that came out of long mediation process (from which DIREKTOR eventually withdrew), but I'm seeing a pattern of consistent accusations and ad hominem attacks which inhibit productive discussions. Am I completely out of line in my thinking? I'm seriously considering taking up the issue at Arbcom or initiating an RFC/U, and any advice you could offer would be much appreciated. I figured asking you and Bwilkins would be appropriate, and this is pretty much a cut and paste of a request I've made at their talk page. --Nuujinn (talk)17:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A number of people do appear to have disputes with DIREKTOR. If these are sufficient to prevent constructive editing, the right course is to use a dispute resolution process. An RFC/U would seem appropriate - there hasn't been a previous one, and it gives a chance for everyone to say their piece in a formal structure - rather than the endless chain of bickering that you get at ANI. Everyone might come away with a different perspective - and an understanding of how to work together. One can at least hope:) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for finally blocking him. My clicking finger is still sore from reverting his poop from this morning--I thought I was going to have to start zapping his edits again tomorrow (he seemed to quit long enough to sleep before starting again). Things like this make me miss having bits myself. HangingCurveSwing for the fence00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC) (formerly Blueboy96)[reply]
O hai! Didn't recognise the new username. Yeah, couldn't see the point of letting this guy continue editing until he had shown some indication of understanding copyright.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen of the Roads: I was about to create a page for the species, and saw you deleted the previous one. What are your reasons? Looks like a viable page (not knowing what the previous page looked like)......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone in the Birds project was shuffling a load of pages, and asked for some to be deleted to move another article to. If there's no article there at the moment, just check that the bird doesn't have an article by some other name. If not, no problem to create a new one.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've messed up on something, and am asking for your help because you're aware of the sensitive personalities involved. Based on comments at Talk:Jupiter (mythology)#'Excessive detail' tag, I moved a section of Jupiter (mythology) to Epithets of Jupiter. Almost all the text was generated by User:Aldrasto11. I would not like to imply that this is anyone else's work, and only belatedly thought of what the article looks like in the edit history. What is the proper way to credit Aldrasto for his work? He is upset about recent efforts to copyedit and streamline the main article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The correct protocol is to put in the edit summary "Moved from/to Foo" or "Copied from Foo". If you didn't do it at the time, put in a null edit, and make the edit summary - "previous edit moved material from Foo. You can also put a note on the talkpage with diffs to your edits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daneto is requesting unblock. His unblock request does address the attacks against DIREKTOR, but it doesn't address the possible POV-pusing and/or edit-warring. I'm not sure how much your block was weighted to one problem or the other. I also have almost no experience with Eastern European/Balkans issues, so I have no idea if this is an obviously partisan editor who's not going to get any better, or if that area is just pretty rough and tumble anyway. Your input is appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Toddst took the decision out of your hands. That area is seriously rough, and DIREKTOR does not appear to be an easy person to work with (as you'll see from comments higher up this page). The block was primarily because while everyone has to put up with them all endlessly appearing at ANI and AE, [[WP:CANVASS]ing on a whole bunch of unconnected talkpages was so far beyond the pale that I felt I had to lay some marker down. I didn't look at other aspects of his behaviour - did anything come of DIREKTOR's allegation of socking (another problem that seems to be perennial in that area)? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to reply to this; Toddst's decision is fine by me. DIREKTOR's accusation was duck based (an IP made the same edit Daneto had previously made after Daneto was blocked), but I'm pretty sure DIREKTOR didn't file an SPI or anything to that effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you were recently involved in declining a unblock request by User:BigzMMA with regard to civility and personal attacks. I wish to draw your attention to a specific thread on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard entitled WP:MMANOT, WT:MMANOT. BigzMMA has been making remarks about the other user in the dispute (User:Papaursa) and was warned to ceace making the attacks. A short time ago they made yet annother personal attack and I told them straight out they needed to strike their personal attacks from their latest posting, gave a 1 hour deadline prior to involving an administrator, and dropped a talk page notice on their talk page. As it's now been over 2 hours (I decided to be reasonable), I request that you please evaluate BigzMMA's statements and comment at their talk page. I am also posting this to the talk pages of other administrators who have dealt with BigzMMA before to form a consensus on how to improve the inter-editor communcation. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - wasn't around when you flagged this. Looks like m.o.p. and Ultra have it in hand. It's silly - the problem is that it's User:BigzMMA who doesn't follow GNG, and keeps trying to get articles kept that have no sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I originally thought about posting this at ANI, but I'm not sure any policies have been violated (except perhaps WP:HARASS). I've been invovled in the MMA project with Papaursa and Bigzmma and read the DRN discussion. Now several admins are recommending RFC/U. This just seems like another page that Bigzmma can bludgeon Papaursa on. His tactics seem to be working since Papaursa has pretty much ceased to post (except for responding to Bigzmma). Bigzmma has posted negative comments about Papaursa on a variety of WP pages, user talk pages, AfD discussions, etc. This seems unfair to me--Papaursa hasn't been shown to do anything wrong and he gets driven off by a user that's been blocked twice in the last month for a variety of offenses. Full disclosure: I posted this same paragraph (minus the first sentence) on Ultraexactzz's talk page (hope that doesn't mean I'm guilty of canvassing) and I've had run-ins with Bigz myself. Astudent0 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair comment. I can't see Papaursa doing anything wrong except getting pissed off with Bigz. BigZ is the one trying to keep non-notable articles, and trying to make it Papaursa's fault that the articles are deleted, not his own for failing to provide decent sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can/should anything be done? It doesn't look like WP is big enough for the both of them. I think Papaursa's remained pretty civil, certainly he hasn't seemed as riled as I would be in his place. Astudent0 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the 3 routs that could be taken (MfD, RfC, RfC/U) and warned Bigz that if they go down the RfC/U path that their motivations were also going to be analyzed. I intend to drop a series of policy bombs on Bigz to demonstrate that the problem isn't with Papaursa, it's with Bigz. Thank you for thinking about this. Hasteur (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on the situation.
I don't know how Papaursa stood it. Bigz posted at WT:MMA that, at least as I read it, it couldn't be consensus if he wasn't involved and that consensus would require all MMA participants and fans to agree. However, my real question is that he's been contacting admins individually and trying to get articles restored that were removed via AfD. I know he's contacted users Lifebaka, Tone, and Spartaz about restoring articles. What is the point of AfDs if a single user can circumvent the whole process? Astudent0 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Tone sounded as if he agreed to restoration of two articles. Ons subject had meanwhile won an event of some kin, an was maybe a fair restore target, but the other wasn't. With a little bit of luck my comments will prevent the latter, without DRV. RichFarmbrough, 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, EotR. Thanks for stepping in and addressing this. I hope he will use his week's time out productively and will return, if he chooses to do so, with a less combative attitude, but I fear we probably haven't seen the last of the need to discuss him on AN/I. We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime: I share your dim view of abuse of RFPP. Seems to me it takes two to dance that particular tango, and I'm a little concerned by Fastily (talk·contribs) having granted, apparently without scrutiny or question, Tartanator's RFPP on Beijingand having quickly taken care of deleting Tartanator's rather damning user page, a request that appears to have been made in response to the user page being linked in the AN/I discussion. I stop short of accusing Fastily of aiding and abetting unacceptable behaviour, but it does raise my eyebrow. Yours? —ScheinwerfermannT·C23:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just young and hasty I think (Fastily). I'm old and a cynic, and always check the reporting editor's edit history. As for Tartanator, if it becomes an issue, I can restore the userpage. I hope we don't see him back at ANI, but like you, I'm not confident. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
George is currently rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. I'm intrigued by the message from Begoon though - I'm beginning to suspect George is one of those folks who cannot go from the specific to the general, and this is why he is having so much trouble. I'd be interested to ask The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk·contribs) to read over George's talkpage - he was very helpful with another problematic user who had some similar characteristics.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't talk about me without being overheard, you know... George means well - I've long been convinced of it. I'm also convinced that he's hurting deeply. Being blocked from WP just might be one of the worst experiences he's ever had, and rearranging deckchairs is something I've resorted to when all I can see is doom and gloom, and everyone "against" me. Of course, in the long run, the doom and gloom is generally just me coming to the slow realisation that I've been a prat, and the people "against" me were really trying to help. The problem is, despite me knowing that, it'll happen again, and you will not be able to tell me this at that time. If only I knew how to keep a broad perspective on things at all times, I could probably help George to do that too - but he's surely feeling very deep in a hole right now, and I don't really know how to help him. He's been doing what he does for years, and to suddenly have the whole world, instead of just the odd person, telling him he's been doing it wrong all that time is a feeling I can only barely imagine. Sorry if that outpouring isn't much help, but it's all I got right now. Begoontalk00:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's actually incredibly helpful. I'd be OK with trying an unblock if he had a mentor - although he didn't seem too keen on that. The problem is that I can't tell from what he says whether he understands the general principles. A week ago he was talking about WP:IAR - it is absolutely key NOT to ignore ANY rules when tagging images for deletion. I think he may have that now, but I still don't think he's sure why tagbombing inoffensive list articles is bringing him grief. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, these are the hardest ones. It's obviously no good to unblock without the issues being resolved. There's no getting away from the fact that, whatever the intentions, this ends up as a competence issue. I'm sure it's not intentionally disruptive, but, as Spock once said: "A difference that makes no difference is no difference". So the competence issue is what's there and it's what needs to be fixed before an unblock would do anything other than waste a load of people's time, and set George up for an even greater fall, probably very quickly. I'd probably be of the opinion that the only way to do the mentoring would be to do it from within a framework where, initially, George can only discussany edits he wants to make with his mentor until the mentor approves. Once a point is reached that everyone is comfortable with, the restrictions could be gradually relaxed. That may take longer than George is happy with, but he'll need to accept that. Now, I guess it would be wrong of me to lay all this out and not offer to be that mentor myself, so, if you're happy with it, I'd propose that you and I attempt to explain this to him, and link him to read this discussion, too. I've not really been active recently, but I've been dipping my toe back in, and I'd be prepared to have a go at this. It may not work, and it will depend, in large part, on George agreeing and wanting it to work - but I think it's worth some effort in this case - and I'll certainly feel better about it if I think we've done all we can to help George re-channel his efforts. If it works, everyone wins - if not - we end up no worse off. Begoontalk23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is very forlorn. I don't want him to walk away, but I don't want him to come back and fall in an even worse hole either. If you're up for it, mentorship is definitely worth a try. Do you want to make the first contact? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh - forlorn is right... Yes, I'll make the offer, referring him to this conversation. I'm not planning to pull punches, though - this only works if he knows where he stands. It'll take me a while to lay my thoughts out clearly - so I'll post a message to him as soon as I'm happy with what I'm saying. Begoontalk00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If no passing admin has already helped, would you be able to help George with [94], hopefully without any sock tags :), to ease George's concerns? Thanks Begoontalk03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen. I find Stephfo's posts to AN regarding fastily to be inappropriate, especially after you warned him for similar actions regarding fastily's user page. Do you concur? I'm at my wit's end with this editor, not sure where to go from here. NoformationTalk22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, thanks for your kind explanation, I do understand how the archive work wrt. how to create them etc. but why the same content is kept twice in two different versions and how it is related to unclosed sections, that I have no clue and can only assume some date-relation. My impression was that particular discussion was stored at single place (wrt. archive number) with all upcoming updates being kept there until closure.--Stephfo (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you don't quite understand how an archive on Wikipedia works. The item is archived when there have been no further posts to it after a set period. The archived content is cut from the project page, and pasted into the archive. Items in the archive may not be edited. You can find individual posts in the history of the project page - this is required for the licensing. You can read the entire thing in one place on the archive page, although it will not show content that was deleted prior to archiving. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elen for kind explanation. I'm not sure if I'm wiser of it, as my impression is that the given discussion/topic was archived prior to being closed, and that implies the edits took place there even after it was archived (at least in one moment I have noticed the report with associated discussion just disappeared from main page and I could find it only in archive, while still it was open, IMHO). This is difficult to comprehend in context of sentence "The item is archived when there have been no further posts to it after a set period." as there obviously further post took later on. In other words, I have difficulties to understand that the same content is archived twice, the first time as Archive 728 and incomplete, the 2nd time as archive 729 and up-to-date. If the two versions differ there inevitably have been "further posts", but then I assume it is a "set period" that has to do with differences. But the case someone would like to add edit there into section that has been not closed yet, how does he/she learn the "set period" of archive 729? Thank you for your patience. --Stephfo (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I unarchived it because it hadn't been closed. When it was archived again it went to a later archive because the old one was full. You edited the archived version but no one else did. NoformationTalk20:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You had previously indicated you would be willing to look into violations of Rich's editing restriction after the discussion on AN was over. That discussion has ended, and the sanction is still in place. Despite several more warnings, R.F. is still violating the restriction (a couple from the last 24 hours: [95] for {{tracklist}}, [96] for <references/>.) I don't see much benefit of going back to AN so soon after the last AN discussion ended, but at the same time I am abstaining from enforcing the edit restriction myself, as the other admins on that page seem to be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so its on the record I think that the way that some editors have been acting towards Rich is completely ridiculous. Yes he has made some bad edits but the way some users (several of which do very few edits of there own) keep stalking him is very inappropriate and unprofessional. Not too mention bordering in creepy. In case you are unaware CBM, FRAM and Xeno basically watch every edit that he does and if they find anything even remote they run and tattle. Now I agree that if he breaks something, goes on a massive cat building spree or some of the other silliness that he has done in the past appropriate action should be taken. But when he is doing some of these "minor" edits alongside other more significant ones I think it should be allowed. Otherwise those little things are going to go on potentially forever and never get fixed or potentially get worse. Personally I think there has been a case of Envycountitis on the part of some of these editors in the past. Just my 2 cents. --Kumioko (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carl isn't creepy, just hung up on preserving historical mark-up. Xeno has basically lost touch with what we are trying to do, and got stuck in technical implementation of rules. Fram I can never understand, he never listens to what anyone says and is constantly attacking and telling other editors what to do - and yes it is more than a little creepy being on the receiving end of such scrutiny, and it certainly detracts from both the quality and quantity of what I can achieve here. But to some extent it goes with the territory. I see that recently Merovingian has just been driven from the project, one of a long line of major contributors, who are not being replaced. I think that maybe the good old days when we worked together to produce an encyclopaedia are fading, and we now have to battle with vested interests and slightly nutty admins to get anything done. I prefer an environment of productive collegiate cooperation, to obstructive combative opposition, but I have managed to continue to be productive in both. RichFarmbrough, 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Carl you know full well that these are perfectly reasonable edits. You stance as protector of templates such as "Otheruses9" or whatever it was you went round reverting any user who changed is counter-productive, but it does at least show that it is you that has the problem with mark-up being changed to what more reasonable editors want. It is absolutely vital, if we are to encourage new editors that we take every step we can to simplify the cognitive load of editing Wikiepdia pages. If you won't be part of the solution, please stop being part of the problem. RichFarmbrough, 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
All I want is for people to stop arguing. If Rich is doing something useful, he will easily be able to persuade (for instance) me that it's useful, because I have no vested interest in it being one way or another. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"All I want is for people to stop arguing." A somewhat novel idea for Wikipedia I'll grant you. But not one that you further with aggressive rude and unfounded attacks. As I remarked I didn't expect that from you, although you clearly had some preconceived ideas that might have biased your opinion on events, personal attacks are not particularly edifying, except to the nature of the attacker. RichFarmbrough, 23:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not trying to attack you. If you've caught the sharp edge of my tongue, it's because you're not some clueless n00b from Jamshed who hasn't yet managed to read to the bottom of any policy. You've been around for ages. If it was just me, I'd probably ignore all those automated edits as a form of compulsive cushion straightening, but you are driving other editors to frothing madness with 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can see that's the impression. But they are not complaining about the edits - most of the time. They are complaining about something minor I am fixing at the same time. And the rules are so labyrinthine that often what is complained about by one of the group is not only allowable according to me, but to another of the group. And if I were so minded I could, on the basis that they are arguing by technicalities rather than pragmatics, make not only the changes I make, but many others I abstain from either in deference to the community (which I have no problem with), or because I cannot afford the time to argue over them with those who will not see anything contrary to their initial position, and be technically within the arbitrary rules they wish to impose.
But really this is trivia, and unless they have something positive to add to the way pages are laid out, and they show no sign, they should move their attention to something else. We have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us, and having people, even one, whose purpose in life is to obstruct others on the project, is a luxury we cannot afford.
I have looked at ArbCom rules on appealing decisions, but I do not see anything specifically addressing how one might appeal for the lifting of a short topic ban imposed through Arbitration Enforcement. What procedure, if any, is necessary to request the lifting or modification of a short-duration topic ban imposed through AE?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, the recent motion [98] imposed a standard text for discretionary sanctions, which includes a standardized appeal mechanism, which is outlined on the page. At the same time, I have to advise that you might be doing yourself more of a favour by just taking a break from the subject until the New Year. Just a thought. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clausen, Kruge and Klein appear to have remained well known and producing notable buildings up until Caroll Klein left and Rudy Clausen retired. Fritz Clausen lived through to 1940, so I thought it was worth including a bit about what happened with the firm while Fritz was still alive and his son was running it. After Rudy retired, the Clausen family seem to have had no more connection with it, although the company currently running it call the Davenport offices "F.G.Clausen", so I also included a little mention of that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just love trying to track companies. If I had known about the brick wall I was going to run into trying to write Right Start, I'd never have started it. :-) (Actually, given the edit history, I probably would have anyway, but I wouldn't do it _now_...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk)22:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you qualified to dispense medical diagnoses on the internet?
I didn't know that you had a medical degree, or that you were willing to diagnose mental conditions over the internet [99]. Any real doctor would lose her license for such an uninformed diagnosis. Any real doctor would also know better to say something like that, so I'm pretty confident in my assessment that you don't have a medical degree. Please see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice.
Remember that mental illness is a serious matter. It is irresponsible to perpetuate stereotypes of how mental illness manifests itself, and even more so to attempt to provide a diagnosis without proper training or study. Buddy431 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing as Buddy's comment is, I should just point out that that comment does cross a line. Since civility seems to be a bit of a hot topic at the moment and this very comment has caused long discussions on Scott MacDonald's page, I'd appreciate it if you were to try and set a better example on civility matters. Upstanding member of the community and all that. WormTT· (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that comment was definitely a Jeremy Clarkson moment. It was intended to be funny, and just...wasn't. I have apologised to Rich, and will happily strike if the bot hasn't archived it already.
It's not to Rich that you should be apologizing, it's to everyone who does have an anxiety disorder, or who has a condition diagnosed on the autism spectrum. Comments like yours just perpetuate stereotypes about how we expect people with these conditions to act, even if they aren't grounded in reality. We do have a large number of editors here who have Asperger syndrome, or OCD or some other anxiety disorder. Your attitude shows very little respect for these contributers.
If I said, "well, you're obviously gay (and I should know, I've spent a lot of time on the Reference Desk)", I'd get shown the door in a hurry. Why is what you said any different? Buddy431 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do have something of a point with that last - I presume you are recalling the rapid ejection of an editor who made a remark of the "why are all you gays such drama queens" type. We do have a lot of editors on the autism spectrum, who tell me that they experience OCD or similar disorders, and have problems with compulsively repeating behaviours when they struggle to understand why they are problematic. I have sympathy and try to have patience with editors who are working through such difficulties, and great respect for those who manage to continue editing despite the difficulties. It is certainly not fair to compare them to Rich Farmborough, whose 'problem' (if it be such) is that he thinks his approach is the better one, even though he had a community sanction against his activities. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know, PMAnderson did appear to cast a !vote in a discussion regarding an article title (of which there is heated debate, WP:LAME and all). I noticed you did comment on the page, but I wasn't sure if that meant you saw his participation and decided it was not within the scope of the ban, or whether you just assumed he was staying out of it, or what. Maybe I'm off base and read the AN/I decision wrong.
If something more policy-based needs to be shown, there's:
You misunderstand the guidance. It is to retain what we have, unless there has been continual edit-warring; that's why it's called WP:RETAIN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Not at all; it can make a great difference. WP:COMMONNAME is only one of a multitude of factors; four or five others are at WP:CRITERIA, and that list is not exhaustive. The fundamental question is which title is most useful for the encyclopedia; and since there is no reason a literate anglophone reader should care (some will care because they are fighting the Anglo-American wars, but they should not), we can leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.
There are occasions where no usage is established, and for them we fall back on first contributor, having nothing else; but the text of this article is in British English.
There are no valid reasons for this change; yoghurt does not have strong national ties to the United States, and there is no ambiguity. Some might suggest that this explains the rash of procedural arguments here. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I commented because while WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONNAME should be independent of the variety of English used, it was obvious that the discussion would descend into 'technical use of English', and I was concerned that his continued contribution would lead to him breaching his ban. Let me have a read of it - if he has breached, I will administer the one week block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to avoid joining your thread on R.F.'s talk page, but I wanted to give you a little data on template usage for comparison.
For the {{TOCright}} template, R.F. himself renamed it to {{TOC right}} years ago. There are currently several redirects to the main template. Of these, "TOCright" is used the most, with 8,788 uses. Another redirect 'Tocright' (which is the same as "tocright") has 2,976 uses. Transclusions of redirects also show up in the transclusion count for the main template "TOC right". Once these are ignored, the main template has less than 6,000 direct transclusions (not via redirects). So "TOC right" is not even the most used name, much less the standard name. The two unspaced versions I mentioned have about 67% of the total usage.
Similarly, after your last warning and after one more of mine, R.F. made this edit [101]. The redirect "FeaturedPicture" has 2,724 uses. The name "Featured picture", which R.F. changed it to, has about 135 direct uses. So if the goal was standardization (which it isn't, per WP:NOTBROKEN) it would still not be clear at all that "Featured picture" should be the right name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For some other background on why people bother reviewing R.F.'s edits, it's worth reading the Block log for SmackBot and for Happy Pixie Bot, its replacement. (At some point I decided I had blocked the bot enough and so I am abstaining from doing so in the future.) R.F. has a history of running bot jobs, both approved for bots and unapproved, on his main account. One example [102] from Nov 17, 2010. I much later realized SmackBot was blocked from 15 Nov to 23 Nov...
This sort of thing, where the bot tasks are not clearly separated from his own edits, is probably why the editing restriction says "from any account". I was not part of the discussion [103] that led to it, but that discussion seems to describe the problem clearly enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to snipe my 2 cents here the "if it isn't broke don't fix it mentality" to me, is a rather weak argument and goes against the point of a the concept of Wikipedia. The general principle about the project is that the content changes dynamically, incrementally over time. I agree that not all of Rich's edits have been fruitfal and some have caused more harm than good. No argument on that one.
Going back to the ain't broke comment though, is again a matter of opinon because there is a difference between something technically working and functionally working. Again this is just speaking from a template redirect perspective and not articles also BTW. Technically yes the template redirects usually work the same way without errors. Functionality thats a little more debatable. Its confusing, it makes it a whole lot harder to program bots when you have to take into account a multitude of redirects, the purpose of having redirects was substantially reduced (although admitedly not eliminated) by the advent of a Spellchecker and the search capability in Wikipedia, etc. Additionally, some projects add templates and redirects to the list of content they track. Adding template redirects to templates is kinda screwy and confusing and adding them to the redirect list is also a bit precarious.
I also agree there is a purpose for redirects and I agree that in 98% of cases we shouldn't be changing them if they are all thats wrong with the edit. However, if we are there anyway doing an edit that is more significant then, IMO we should also fix the template redirects. Especially if the redirect name is ambiguous to the actual template.
On the bot issue, to me, this is a different story. The community has agreed that for some edits we need to use bots. The problem is that the rules are so squishy that they only apply when we feel like hammering someone to the cross like in Rich's case. The bot rule threshold is so low that virtually anyone doing any repetetive task of more than 50-100 articles could be called out for violating it. My biggest problem here is that I can in even a manual manner crush a few hundred edits a day without AWB or other tools so it makes the need to submit a bot request and wait a few months for approval a bit moot. I can submit a task and wait a few weeks or knock it out in a couple hours and move to the next one. Kind of a no brainer. So, although I cannot completely resolve Rich of blame for some of his actions, if the bot process were a bit more timely they probably wouldn't have this problem. --Kumioko (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the template issue, Kumioko explains it pretty well, combined with what I say on my talk page. The only clearer explanation is by.. er.. Kumioko here (end of section), where the table really brings home the typical situation.
Carl cites the block logs for Smack Bot and Sad Pixie Bot. Whether you (Elen) consider block logs significant or not is really important in answering that point. I have thought of creating a page "SmackBot - the real block log" in the past, but decided this would be too divisive. If you (Elen) consider it relevant I can annotate the logs quite easily. On the other hand if you consder bot blocks trivial, then its a waste of time.
Thirdly Carl says "R.F. has a history of running bot jobs, both approved for bots and unapproved, on his main account." This is a meaningless statement, what, after all is a bot job? Carl conceived, for some reason, that there was a rule that stated that if you had a task approved at BRFA you were not allowed to make similar edits manually, and still seems to cling to this long standing fallacy. In fact there is no such rule and never has been. Even if there were it would not forbid doing other tasks manually. Every time someone makes a statement like this it furthers the idea that I run automated edits from my main account. Effectively character assassination by attrition.
So editing at a rate of 1 edit every 2 seconds is NOT automated? [104] And you really were sitting at your computer for hours-long stretches on Christmas Day just hitting save? [105] –xenotalk18:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can go much faster than that, and I already told you I was using standard AWB for those edits. You can see me here stop and fix up some templates. When I offered you my deerstalker and meerschaum on AN/I, it wasn't because I thought you were exhibiting the characteristics of the great sleuth, it meant that your deductions were completely faulty, and perhaps the trappings might give you inspiration to be a little more accurate. (Elen, my attempts at humour are also completely misinterpreted.) RichFarmbrough, 18:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hmm... I'll just say that I find this incredibly hard to believe. But to each their own. So I suppose if we take you at your word, this means that if you are editing at a rapid rate with AWB, and there are careless mistakes that would have been caught by appropriate diligence, such errors may be attributed to human carelessness rather than unattended automation. Of course, neither is appropriate. –xenotalk18:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be realistic about error rates. And as I said both the quality and quantity of my work are suffering form this whole affair, not only am I constantly looking over my shoulder, expecting to be jumped for some trivia, distracting me from real errors, but I have no time left over from the constant fire-fighting to actually make the type of process improvements that might help. You have attempted set up a regime where errors are permissible, but non-errors are not, what do you think the consequences of that are likely to be? Having said that, this is all a red-herring pretty much. The actual issues are 1. Is there a correctly processed ER in force, 2. Are the attempts to impose it sensible. For 1. I argue no, and it seems pretty clear that no consensus was ever gathered. For 2, even if I were wrong on 1. I can see a spectrum running from "unwise" to "plain loony-toons". I keep AGFing that no one would be a WP:DICK enough to get upset at say, fixing "UK Legislation", only to find that I am wrong, again. I really cannot believe even now that anyone would seriously think they are doing the project a service by trying to preserve outdated template names, typographical errors, obscure mark-up, pornography, typing short-cuts and other miscellaneous cruft. But it's like the old saying about giving someone a uniform. Give them a mop and they put it on their head and think they are Harpo Marx. RichFarmbrough, 20:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
In the incident I linked, in the three days from Nov 15 2010 and Nov 17 2010 R.F. made 4,062 edits. In the three hour period starting at 22:00 UTC on the 16th, he made 1,438 edits, averaging 7.9 per minute over that 3 hour period. Nobody can tell whether those edits were automated, but that volume and speed of editing is indistinguishable from automated editing. A more recent example was 1,439 edits on November 27, 2011, mostly related to the spelling of Encyclopedia Britannica. These, for lack of a better word, are what I call "bot jobs". The exact manner in which the edits are made is not the key point, it's the volume and speed of the edits, which are utterly unlike what we normally think of as "manual editing".
I do stand by the claim that when a bot is blocked, it is not permissible for the operator to run the same task on his or her main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This claim is trivially against natural justice and common sense. If someone would have been allowed to perform a task manually, then going through the task approval process should not disbar them from performing it manually, even if the bot is blocked. Bear in mind that there are a multitude of reasons a bot can be blocked that may have no bearing on that or any task.
Someone should not be penalised for following process.
Weighing in on this last. If a bot is blocked, it is not permissible for the operator to carry out the same task on a manual account until investigations have been completed. The operator needs to be spending his time working out what the problem with the bot is, and getting it resolved. If the bot is blocked for running logged out for instance, then although the editor might legitimately do the bot's tasks, it's better to fix the logging out problem. If the bot is generating an error as a result of a bug in an upgrade(I'm thinking Rezabot last month), then the operator might have to do some tasks manually until the bug gets fixed. If the bot task was not authorised by the community and that's why it was stopped, then it isn't authorised for any automated edits, or for a campaign of edits either. So Rich is right in the abstract. In the specific - I think it likely that when your bots were stopped, you ought to have stopped carrying out those edits, as they were stopped because the community didn't want the edits done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really I don't want to get in to this, digging up stuff from a lifetime ago. But I have read the history, Carl points to, and apart from Carl being wrong in principle, in practice it was a different task with a short custom ruleset. I explained that at the time, I even posted the ruleset (some few dozen rules compared with SmackBot's then hundreds) since Carl is so hard to convince of anything. Nonetheless he remembers the incident as he initially diagnosed it - which is par for the course. (I actually remember folk being less obnoxious or obstinate than they were, re-reading all this old stuff is partly why my attitude to Fram and CBM has hardened over the past 24 hours.) I do agree if there was consensus that a task should not be done, then the means by which the task was done would be irrelevant. And indeed that is why I oppose BAG being given authority over non-bot editors, it is simply not necessary. Anyway as I say this is one side-track among many, due to those who wish to widen the debate, for whatever reason. RichFarmbrough, 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Despite the ongoing discussion, R.F. is again violating his editing restriction. Note that some edits listed here have more than one issue, but each is listed only once.
Causing errors in the text: [115] ("Lennon–McCartney John Lennon and Paul McCartney, Performed by The Beatles")
I think my discussion post turned out to be less productive than I hoped, so I'm not planning to post any more threads like that, and just limit my comments to things like this. But if you have specific questions for me I will try to answer them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, I don't see anything in these examples that causes me concern. All were done with a more significant edit so they don't worry me. You did raise a good point and that is redirects for sister wikis like wikispecies so I may add those to AWB later. On the Persondata comment I opened a discussion at the Persondata talk page about that a few days ago. I personally think, as I stated there, that the time for leaving comments about "This is a persondata template" are gone and we don't need to do this anymore. Especially now that it will be added by a bot if its not there. --Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe this - it's like paramagnetism, however many times you see it you still can't believe it.
We established already why those comments are not worth keeping.
We established already (several times) why most template redirects are worth by-passing.
Wikispecies is a proper noun, using lower case for that is tantamount to saying we should set 'pedia in comic sans.
Everyone spells {{Infobox}} with a capital I. Yes even people who can't spell yogit.
The encyclopaedia gains nothing, I repeat, nothing, from these antics. You are an expert in a subject where you can make valuable contributions, and yet you prefer to chase around, placing obstacles in the path of others, mass reverting those you disagree with (and it's not just me, it's a significant number of editors). Instead of "protecting" the Maths Project from having a banner name in the same format as every other wiki-project, "protecting" obscure parameters of templates that are used in maybe one or two (dubious) places of several million instantiations, protecting grammatically incorrect, misleading and downright bitey template redirects - get with the program! Write something on non-linear dynamics, or functional operators or group presentations, or matroids. Or do vandal fighting - but find some real vandals to fight, stop tilting at windmills. (Huggle and Stwiki are both excellent.) Or find something off-wiki - anything!
Although I don't agree with any of the numbered points, I am trying to avoid getting back into that seemingly unending discussion. Each of the edits I linked violates your edit restriction (except the error(s) in the new text), and the purpose of my post was simply to point out that such edits are still being made. Tersely, — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is an error - the automated edit has not recognised the piped link when replacing Lenon/McCartney with Lenon-McCartney
this wasn't a redirect, it just had the same words - the automated edit hasn't recognised that.
It's not about bypassing redirects, it's about using the standard attribution. The fact that some of the attributions are links is just a bonus. RichFarmbrough, 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
That's two out of the four edits in that area on that day, an unacceptable error rate even for me.
Fiddling around
{{Infobox_album}} contains the words <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->. Before you start ripping them out with automated edits, get them taken out of the template. Until that point, leave the edits alone
In fact, I think this highlights a larger issue. What you need to do is get some consensus on how something should look now - the comments, the redirects. Then get agreement for a one-time bot run to fix it everywhere. After that, the use of automated or manual editing to correct new errors would be acceptable. Until then, all I can recomment is to stop bloody fannying around with it, because there's no current consensus to remove that text. And you are under editing sanctions. And I will block you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to block someone based on a poorly worded ER for which there was no consensus, and for which there was consensus recently that it was not validly passed, I guess you have your reasons. Meanwhile CBM edit wars in his usual fashion, and retcons his arguments, Fram continues, doubtless, on his merry way, either harassing me or some other poor unfortunate, and Xeno will return to making snide comments when I attempt to protect a user from real life stalking. But it's all good. RichFarmbrough, 23:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It appears that R.F. has made some changes, for example apparently no longer automatically replacing <references/> with {{Reflist}} and not removing the comment from the persondata template.
But there are still several custom changes being made by his AWB setup that violate his edit restriction. These are all after the last report.
Capitalization changes in template invocations: [116] "infobox road"; [117] "wikiquote"
It would be perfectly straightforward for R.F. to stick to a stock AWB install, just adding new rules for the particular change that's being made. Instead it appears from the diffs that he has simply turned off some of the changes I mentioned above while leaving others enabled in a custom set of AWB rules. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be perfectly simple for Carl to stop being a pain in the neck. He recently said he is going to go on a reversion spree to reintroduce an extinct template. Well he has done this before, but this is the behaviour that seems reprehensible. I would really appreciate an uninvolved admin looking at Carl's history in these matters over the last couple of years. I wouldn't mention it, foolish and irritating though it is, but when his slightly strange editing starts to impact on others (as it has on some really difficult projects I have undertaken, and is doing now, since he is extending it to abusive calls for administrative action) I think it's time that someone took a long hard look. From anyone else I would classify CBM's posts here as WP:POINT but I think he genuinely believes he is doing the right thing. However it passes the duck test as WP:POINT - I.E. it is still disruptive, regardless of the motivation. RichFarmbrough, 01:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
If you are violating your edit restriction, you are violating it. The arbcom case was rejected on the theory that the community could handle things well enough under that edit restriction, which implies that it needs editors to notice and report violations. During the subsequent AN discussion that upheld the edit restriction, Elen indicated she would be willing to hear about these reports, so I have posted them here. I have no personal remarks to make about you, I am simply pointing out objective violations of your editing restriction. Additional examples since the last report include [124] and [125] (bypassing the non-redirect "portal box") and [126] (capitalization of the stub template). — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carl that we shouldn't be changing Portal box to Portal but they the other petty little changes are fine in my opinion as long as he is doing other more significant changes. Especially the infobox to Infobox one. To me it just looks silly to have infobox in lower case and since infoboxes are frequently cramed full of data and parameters I find it easier to read when the template starts with a upper case and I can tell it apart from the parameters. On the Portal box to Portal change though I will say this. If the logic for Portal now subsumes the need for Portal box we should deprecate portal box and do a bot to replace it and move on. We do absolutely need to discuss it first but I don't think its a particularly contraversial change in the evolution of the pedia. --Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sums up my concerns. If these changes, which appear 'cushion-straightening' to some, are actually of significance to the project, then we should agree them, have a list of them somewhere, and get people to code bots to fix them. It seems to me that it is people fiddling around making changes with AWB that cause the grief, through a combination of the change not being discussed, the semi automation introducing edits errors, and whatever else it is that gets people aerated. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate how we use these tools generally, rather than giving them freely to people then castigating them for how they use them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should also consider that when one does ten edits, those edits can be done without error relatively easily. The problem is that when you do 10, 000 edits, regardless of how careful you are, the law of averages says your gonna screw something up do to the sheer lack of standardization rampant throughout WP. That is part of the problem that Rich (and a lot of others in various ways) is trying to address. There is a very good reason to allow the use of redirects, whether those be templates, articles, etc. among them being user friendly editing. There is less of a good reason why we should leave these millions of redirects when a decent bot can be programmed to add the correct link. Especially, in non article namespaces such as templates and categories. Lets also consider that CBM has made many many errors and even his bots are not without flaws, useful as they are. What most of his bots don't do though is make edits. So if his bot that builds the assessment tables completely forgets to calculate FA's it might be a while before someone notices. If someone is editing 10, 000 articles and makes a couple mistakes on a watched article though all hell breaks loose and some editors run around like Chicken little screaming the sky is falling as they discuss what to do about the impending disaster.
The answer here isn't some knee jerk reaction, locking down of the tools but to approach the situation intelligently. Is there harm to the pedia if an edit is made that breaks something, YES, absolutely, is the world going to end if a redirect is changed while doing another edit? No, not so much. I really think that we need to deal with the situation appropriately rather than gut punch Rich every time he changes a redirect or have 3 or 4 editors spend hours mining through his edits looking for a good bludgeon (preferrably heavy with sharp edges). I personally believe that by and large, Rich is living within the spirit of his restriction even if he does occassionally taunt the guards. I am also still pursuing the discussion about getting rid of that Persondata comment. --Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought today to check again to see if R.F. had fixed the problems with his AWB rules, but I found he is still violating his edit restriction. The following edits are all from the last 24 hours.
Just wanted to let you all know that the requirement to include the persondata comment has been removed per a discussion on the Persondata template talk page and a followup discussion has gained support for removing the comment when a more significant edit is made. The PersondataOmatic app has already been updated and a Feature request is currently pending with AWB. So I think that as long as he does it with a more significant edit as he did with these he should be ok.
In regards to the Infobox comment I think that one could be addd to AWB. Since it doesn't simply involve an upper/lower case issue but a clarification of the title itself I think its ok. I realize this is still a debated subject though with some editors. Regarding Portal box if the logic for portal has deprecated the need for Portal box then we should eliminate portal box and just use portal. I will open a discussion about this one and see if we can get some clarification. I do agree that Rich shouldn't do this one until we get it clarified. Although I agree that clarifying Clear left and Language Icon is helpful I understand others don't and he should probably not do this one. IMO though as long as its done with a more significant edit its fine. Clarifying Cite paper to Cite Journal is valid IMO and helps to clarify what it is.
With the new upgrade to Wikipedia in the last couple months the rendering of "references" and "reflist" are the same. I read somewhere fairly recently that it is recomended to use the appropriate template rather than HTML markup and using the template helps to determine how many articles have reference groups. Its much easier to do a transclusion count of Template:Reflist than to try and calculate References+Reflist+whatever else.
On the last one I kinda agree with Carl that it reads better with the HTML tags. I do think that AWB has logic built in to eliminate HTML coding like this that has nothing in it but I think it ignores if its in comments. It might be worth asking Rjwilmsi if AWB ignores things like this in comments or not.
I started a discussion on the talk page for Portal box about merging Portal and Portal box and just using portal box. There have already been suggestions about combining to other Portal related templates as well. I have asked Rich to not report anymore changes to Portal box to Portal until the discussions conclude to prevent the possibility of changing something and then having to change it back. Just wanted to let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have been following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Workshop#Proposals_by_Elen_of_the_Roads but rather than the rather odd sanctions Rich has about how AWB is coded (and, I'm supposed to know how AWB is coded. Me who only just now learned how to programme her VCR?) I'd like to see if something similar could be thrashed out in respect of Rich's sanctions. I think you've picked up on the key issues - edits that don't really have a consensus, and the introduction of errors. If you've started to get consensus for some of these edits that's excellent, and if Rich will stop doing the edits that don't yet have consensus, the whole silly argument could pretty much stop.
I don't think its a lack of consensus so much as not taking the time to document it. In most cases (I admit not all) the edits are helpful and generally reflect the attitude of the mob, but instead of starting a long boring discussion about something that 98% of editors wither agree with or don't care about, he just did it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your comments at WT:MMA and you seem to know a lot about WP policy. I don't, so I was hoping you can answer a question I asked at WT:MMA#Jake Bostwick/Bashir Ahmad (martial artist). Can editors just "reinstate" articles that have been removed at AfD and is there any practical difference between "reinstate" and "recreate"? Thank you. Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, please see PMAnderson’s post at the very bottom here at a perma-link to Talk:Yoghurt. Writing How many are in this self-appointed "community"? I see three: Greg, Kai, and Born2Cycle is clearly a rhetorical question intended to suggest that there isn’t a broad “community” speaking, but just three “self-appointed” editors who have somehow managed to manipulate things. As is often the case where PMA drops in, his post was inflammatory and unhelpful. FWIW, the community consensus at the RM is exceedingly lopsided with a consistent policy being cited as the underlying premiss.
The previous post to which PMA was responding was mine, where I wrote of the “community speaking now.” What I was addressing there was how an admin had suggested that those participating in the RM were being disruptive. I was making the point that when 30 to 40 editors in good standing (from I.P.s out of seemingly nowhere to Xeno) are weighing in on an issue) then the *community* is speaking and by definition, a community action like that can not be disruptive by participating in an RM.
It certainly is not helpful to have someone come in and try to egg on others with an inflammatory suggestion that amounts to “Where is this *community* you speak of? All I see is three self-appointed editors” and then he goes on to name each of the three. By naming all three, there was bound to be someone to take the bait—and they did.
As you may recall from PMA’s ANI and resultant editing restriction, RMs were left up in the air because there were many that did not pertain to “Technical aspects of the English language.” Many RMs are things like Current wars in southern Sudan → Current wars in South Sudan (because the latter covers the newly formed country). However, it seems to me that the majority of RMs that are of interest to PMA are ones involving technical aspects of English. Those are hot-button issue about which he has a highly motivated style when interacting with others. He has a consistent and persistent pattern of baiting and accusation when participating in group discussion. Notwithstanding that you reminded him here at the bottom of his talk page, to Just be careful not to stray into problem areas, he proved that he can’t.
Most editors just don’t know of his history and when challenged at a personal level, take the bait. Over on Talk:Yoghurt one editor, Kai445, upon learning that PMA has a history of this sort of thing, responded with I didn't realize he was topic banned, or I would have just not acknowledged him from the get-go (∆ edit, here).
I think it is best if his restriction… is Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year is formally interpreted to be precisely as written and includes RMs. Greg L (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The admin who alleged that 30+ editors in good standing were somehow being “disruptive” by participating in the RM struck that part of his post (and apologized there and on my talk page) after I pointed it out to him. Greg L (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism has started up again on Kinetic sculpture race. It is likely being done by a group of people who are trying to take over the event in Humboldt County. I am concerned that I am too close to the situation to edit/repair this page, and for your help. This time edits are coming from an anonymous IP, but they are the same type of edits as were previously done by User:Ebenezercore and other anonymous editors. I appreciate your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, that the last time this group of people made similar changes to today's edit/reversion/reversion was a while ago. Just because they're not doing this every day doesn't mean what they are doing is correct. Their rewrite of the page was reverted earlier today, correctly... and now reverted again to the incorrect version which adds useless information and changes the weblinks from the actual organizers to the folks pretending to administer the race. Note the paragraph at the bottom which claims some form of contract expired in 2011. No citations, no sources, because that didn't happen. The race is administered by "Kinetic Universe" organization, not the "reconstituted Humboldt Kinetic Association." The races all over the country are not franchises, nor are they required to sign any paperwork with the Humboldt Kinetic Association. All that is fantasy. There isn't even a newspaper story to back up any of it. It's unfortunately important because this group of people is fundraising under the banner of another organization by pretending to be the people in charge. In truth, this is the work of a group of people trying to take over the county's single biggest event by using "The Big Lie" approach. I'd really appreciate any help you can render in this situation. As one of the former organizers of this event, I feel I am too close to it to make the changes myself, but I know first-hand what these people are up to, and it's not harmless at all. Here's the closest to a citation I can find that makes any sense out of the situation Northcoast Journal "Kinetic Klash Kontinues"Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I do see what you mean, upon checking things more carefully. Another user had removed some of the edits [154] but I've now restored the prior version [155][156].
I would not necessarily call the edits "vandalism"; it's more of a content dispute (even if it's pretty clear that the refs do not support the facts). It could of course be discussed on Talk:Kinetic sculpture race if necessary. Anyway - hope that helps. I was just passing, really. Chzz ► 07:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not really sure which of the arbitrators to ask about this. I hope it’s not a problem that I ask you.
During the abortion case, ArbCom considered making a finding of fact about OrangeMarlin’s incivility, but ultimately decided to suspend remedies about him until he could return to editing. Now that OrangeMarlin has returned, the issue of his incivility has resurfaced at AN/I, and it’s becoming clear that the community is not capable of resolving it. (Multiple people have commented that the issue is too complex to be dealt with there.) There haven’t been any steps in the dispute resolution process beyond the unresolved AN/I thread, but I think there are also a lot of signs that additional dispute resolution is unlikely to resolve this issue. And more importantly, the wording of ArbCom’s decision “potential remedies are suspended until he returns to editing” seems to be saying that ArbCom would be ready to examine this issue again if the issues resurface after OrangeMarlin’s return. (Which they have.)
Could you please tell me whether I’m interpreting this aspect of the decision correctly? If so, I’d also like to know what course of action ArbCom had in mind to re-examine this issue if that proved necessary. I don’t know whether the appropriate thing here would be to request a full case, or just an amendment. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation is correct. Arbcom were in agreement that no sanction or action could be considered until OrangeMarlin was able to respond. There was a disagreement as to whether it could be noted that his behaviour was very incivil. If OM has returned to editing in the area around Abortion as construed within the case decision, then he needs to have cleared up the incivility matter with Arbcom first. If he hasn't, he can be blocked forthwith, and the case discussed on his talkpage. If however he has returned to being incivil in other areas, then this particular case/discussion/sanction is not relevant, and his general approach to editing needs to be tackled.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think he’s returned to the abortion topic area. The current incivility that’s being discussed is occurring in other areas. Do you have any advice about how the issue ought to be handled in that case? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion at AN/I about whether or not to block him for incivility, and there was obviously no consensus for it. I know consensus isn’t ordinarily required for a civility block, but isn’t it regarded as disruptive for an admin to block someone when the community clearly hasn’t reached consensus that it’s appropriate?
It’s becoming clear in the AN/I thread that even though everyone has strong feelings about this issue, the community is unable to reach a consensus about what to do. There was a previous AN/I thread about the same issue a few months ago that produced basically the same result. There have also been four different WQA threads about OrangeMarlin in the past year, none of which have been able to avert the current conflict at AN/I: [157][158][159][160]
So, I think it’s evident that the community simply isn’t capable of resolving this issue. Do you think at this stage the appropriate course of action is to request arbitration? That’s definitely the direction I’m leaning, but I would like to know if you think it would be better to deal with this via something like an amendment to the abortion case. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note guys. It appears my personality lost me my job yesterday (local government cuts - senior managers are faced with picking between people who have all been in the job years, have very similar experience etc. Bad times all round), so I guess you could call that karma. Have appended a note to the question - I'm still very embarassed about the comment to be honest, but not wholly convinced by Slon02's response. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that.
I know that your job has been filled with stress the last year. I trust that your abilities and experience will land you a better position soon. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz17:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I really appreciate the good wishes. I know everyone's going through hard times, and not just in the UK. Hopefully the stress at least will tail off now it's all done and dusted and the uncertainty's out of the way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how many people get laid off just before Christmas. It's no doubt a worrying time, but take heart; I was made redundant in 1992, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. I hated the job, but the money was good, so it gave me the kick up the backside I needed to find something I hated less. In the end I set up an IT consultancy with an ex-colleague who'd also been made redundant at the same time, and we never looked back. MalleusFatuorum18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is, isn't it. I expect often it's because the accountants can see the year end position looming, and know that Jan-Mar is never a good time for sales of anything. To be honest, after having two projects (an internal freecycle web application and a mobile app for reporting such as faulty streetlamps that fed directly into our crm) canned this year at point of launch, I think I should have taken the hint and moved on earlier, but as you say, you get comfortable and put up with all kinds of stuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this: any time a calorie-free stroopwafel would help, let me know. I wish you every success in finding and excelling in a new real-life role where your talents are more appreciated. You have contributed a lot to this project, and I hope that such a future will bring even more praiseworthy contributions from you here. Geometry guy23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. I'm Sorry too. If it's any consolation, most of the good things that happen to me tend to occur just after seemingly negative events which I wasn't expecting, and wouldn't have chosen. If that sounds cryptic, basically it just means (and here I quote my ever eloquent, late father) "fuck 'em - I control my life". You'll be better, happier, wealthier* for the experience (in that famous, mythical "long run"). Oh, and hopefully you'll end up with a better job too :) Seriously, it's no fun when stuff like this happens, but I actually found the best 2 jobs (out of 8) I ever had through forced moves, and started my own business due to being affected by a company restructure. Never looked back... (well... sometimes wish I wasn't my own boss, but I get over that quick...).
"You'll look back at this and laugh" - my grandma used to say. She was right sometimes, too.
(*wealthier is an estimate. This estimate may contain peanuts or other nut products, or have been produced on machinery previously used to produce products containing nut products. Users should take professional advice before relying on unprofessional anecdotes.)
"I'm concerned at the suggestion that [editor] sent Bishonen some kind of rude email". No, no. I probably made it sound worse than it was, please don't be concerned. (Feel free to quote me in case you're planning to make any further post — I've stated I'm done there, myself, and I really am.) It was just the kind of e-mail one doesn't like to get, you know? But your seconding of my suggestion that the editor keep communication on-wiki is appreciated nevertheless. All this privacy is a sad mistake. :-) Bishonen | talk01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I'm reassured that it wasn't actually rude. Email can feel quite invasive sometimes, and I do think that if its making you feel like that, it's better if anything relevant is said onwiki. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen of the Roads, would you please restore the M.E. Bell article which you apparently just deleted.
It was fucking unnecessary, IMHO, for SarekOfVulcan to put in a Speedy Deletion on it, which i was just responding to, but the Talk page was deleted too. Yes, obviously if there is an article on this person already, then it will make sense to merge the info. I don't think you should condone or encourage SarekOfVulcan in running up some kind of tally, of negative impositions at my talk page or of articles I have touched that he has successfully disrupted. I do wholly object to the Speedy Deletion. Please restore it now, so that I may effect a proper merge of material.
Also, in particular, it is wholly unnecessary to actually delete the page, as SarekOfVulcan and you too probably should know. It will be proper to have a redirect from one name or the other. Please restore it with its complete (brief) edit history. --doncram17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You do a lot of fantastic work with Wikipedia and ArbCom. Given that, I wanted to personally invite you to attend WikiWomenCamp being held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in May 2012. This is a women's only conference, followed by a two day gender gap conference open to every one. Your experiences and knowledge base would be a great thing to add to the event. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know how to make a permanent link. It should have been a permanent link. I always use permanent links for things like that. I can only assume I had two tabs open at once, the permanent link page and the live page, and picked the link off the wrong tab. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the impatience, it was a gutta cavat lapidem outburst. I would have removed it again if I hadn't been on the run. I've fixed the link. Also, it wasn't me, it was the anklebiter. Bishonen | talk22:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
If it had been "in the summer" or even "last month", maybe. I was kind of involved over the whole Rodhullandemu thing, but wouldn't have recused over that. But I did specifically say that I would overturn Thumperward's block, which I think is too involved to be an Arbitrator. I would make a statement if it came to evidence - Malleus says things that would make a City trader blush, but he's really very supportive of people who are here to edit, and rather than just ignore his complete downer on admins, the community should at some point have made a serious attempt to address just what the problem was. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for the link to my scientific report on friction mechanics, here it is. Peer viewed for a total of 12 months by at least one professor and several high rank academics and university officials and published at Academic archive On-line (DiVA), on a permanent URI: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-2790
Wallin H. 2008, 129 p: An investigation of friction graphs ranking ability regarding the galling phenomenon in dry SOFS contact : (Adhesive material transfer and friction), A free pdf document available here or www.diva-portal.org found here or at www.uppsok.libris.kb.se here use search words:"galling & Harald Wallin" or the direct libris link here
And may I humbly ad, it will probably soon be a piece of scientific history in al it’s simplicity =)
Thank you for stepping in and taking much-needed decisive action. Somewhere in the ANI thread there is a list of Porch's three or four alt accounts. I'm thinking maybe they should be blocked as well, for his own good as much as to enforce the block. Obviously my admin tools are out of play with regard to this user, so I'm fine with whatever you think is best, just wanted to be sure you were aware of the alts.Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not I actually feel sorry for him too. Iit is difficult to get an incompetent person to understand that their incompetence is the problem. We actually have an article about this, it's called the Dunning–Kruger effect. Showing such persons the door is an unfortunate but necessary part of maintaining this project. Thanks again for your willingness to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked 4 alts - If he's going to be blocked, especially for 6m, it should be across all of the accounts. If I've missed any, give me a shout. I can't say that I saw things so clearly though, and have put up an alternative on ANI. WormTT· (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, when all the best efforts have been expended, this is where it goes. It's a bloody shame, because, here, again, is a user who I really think means only well. Sadly, sometimes there is just "no fit". The funny thing is, even though I've been away for a while, this was one of the "sagas" I have followed, so I do happen to have read the details, and I can't see what more could be done right now. I can only hope PC will benefit from the "break", which I support, because, that way, the effort he, and others (Worm, I'm looking at you) put in won't seem wasted in the long run. It wasn't. Begoontalk13:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spend enough time working with problematic editors that I have to accept I'll lose quite a few to being blocked - and I can't say that Porchcorpter will ever be a brilliant editor. And I've had enough success (even with PC) that it offsets the time spent. However, I don't think he's done anything worth a block here, let alone a 6 month ban. WormTT· (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do spend that time, and I genuinely wish I could be as philosophical as you are sometimes. I obviously don't have the in-depth knowledge of this particular situation that you do, given the enormous time that you have invested, so forgive me when I get things wrong. Although I've not been involved, I think I've read about 80% of this whole thing, and links, going way back (previous RFAs, mentorship, IDHT etc...), just from interest. I said I support a "break" largely because there *does* come a point that an editor's contribution are causing more problems than solutions. At this point, sadly, I think this is the case here. Of course - a comment like "Shit, I'm sorry, I never realised all you guys were just trying to help. I'll try harder and hit "Preview/Cancel" more" could still help, even now, because wikipedia is more forgiving than the least demanding mistress, and people here will happily give a 536th chance if there's still some prospect of success. A side note is that it would be lovely if we (me included) extended that good faith to some of our well meaning new editors (who, rumour has it, are important to us). Ideas for how we extend our pool of forgiveness to new/IP editors seem relevant here too. I'm not being facetious in any way here - these are questions I would love to just scratch. Begoontalk13:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even as Porch's Wiki Otter, I think the way you handled this was possibly for the best. Although I suggested waiting for Worm, if Id been in his shoes Id have been secretly pleased at you making the block a fait accompli , sparing me the task of trying to turn concensus around. I wish I was still as positive about life as WTT seems to be! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, Porchcorpter is still throwing his pity party on his talk page. He's now exhibiting the same behavior he was blocked for in the first place. The best move might be to revoke talk page access and force him to do something else for the next six months. Otherwise, I think I'll continue to see updates on this "punitive block" and his computer troubles from his talk page on my watchlist for the duration of the block. Eagles24/7(C)07:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:
File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia
This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.
Facepalm... Wow~! More dead chickens been dug up... time to block them all~? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Declined. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Inconclusive. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 17:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
And I was doing it anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC).
Done - [93]. Up to George, now, I guess. Begoon talk 01:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
![[101]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=464418437){kind=link}