I hope I'm following wikipedia policy on this. You are a checkuser right?
My account is currently subject of a sockpuppet investigation. I was an immature idiot and my actions were stupid and rash. I apologise wholeheartedly for it.
I'm setting up a new account mainly because I just want to put this all behind me. The other reason is Im personally fed up with the conduct of a number of
editors including the editor who initiated the investigation, User:One Night In Hackney. He was right to initiate the investigation, I'm not criticising him/her for that. It's the editor's
general manner on this site which I have a problem with.
I'm making a clean start. I was a total idiot and I just want to move on from this.
Exiledone (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Technically Glic16 displays no similarities other than editing from the Irish Republic as the other socks do, but the quacking is loud and the technical evidence does not prevent him being a duck" - say what? I thought that addition to the case was pretty baseless but never got round to saying anything. All I saw was an editor with a very sparse contribution history editing mostly Ireland related topics, but nothing that screamed sock. As for the edit to Exildeone's userpage it was awarding a barnstar as they did to numerousotherIrisheditors around the same time. I'll admit I didn't look too carefully at their entire history since there was nothing obvious, so if I've missed something say so. But the OP didn't present much compelling evidence and you didn't mention any you'd uncovered, so I'm a bit baffled. 2 lines of K30323:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to be editing from a mobile phone, which makes it impossible to say technically if they are related. I thought there was similar editing, but I've left him for the other admins to decide his fate - I prefer it if several people separately come to the same conclusion when blocking under WP:DUCK. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the appropriate venue is to propose this, but I'd like to suggest that we consider imposing a temporary injunction on the Falun Gong namespace pending the outcome of the current ArbCom case. Perhaps something to the effect that editors should exercise caution with major or potentially contentious changes, and seek to discuss them on talk pages first? This seems consistent with the editing policy. Any advice on how to proceed? Homunculus (duihua) 03:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see from The ANI discusion that I condidered at the time that it might be intended in another way, but his posts were very aggressive. I asked him in the block notice to explain if I had misinterpreted - it appears instead he disappeared for months then came back with a massive rant at me. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether he understands the problem with his approach to editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of the bosses, so all I can do is ask what was "pointy, off-topic and/or non-evidenced" about my response to Prioryman's comments on Fae's real name that it was hatted. The first paragraph was dealing with Prioryman's speculating about another editor's motive, absent any evidence whatsoever, and the second was a summary of my view of what had happened, in contrast, I thought, to the much heavier weight to the events given by Prioryman, also absent evidence, though further commentary (but not evidence) is promised. As for Bali Ultimate's remarks, may I suggest that in such a setting as this case, points do need to be made, and sometimes underscored and that that is the point of much of the exercise? Bielle (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bielle. There wasn't any problem with your posts, as far as I have observed you have always used reasonable language and supported with evidence anything that needed supporting. You just got caught up when I hatted the thread. The issue was with the whole section which was starting to turn into allegations about other editors, their motives etc. Unfortunately it seems Bali carried on escalating elsewhere in the case and has ended up with a block. If you want to re-add any of your points that are still relevant to the discussion as it stands, there isn't a problem with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations about the motives of other editors were unsupported and, as such, ought to have all been excised. They weren't just off-topic, but in complete contravention of the rules against speculation and for evidence. My comments make little sense outside that context but I objected to them being characterized in the basket of bad behaviours when they weren't and when so very much else that is clearly behaviour forbidden by the "rules of engagement" is being ignored. Bielle (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly apologise if I have given the impression that your comments were in any way problematic - that was not my intention, and I am happy to set the record straight. The set of comments were flagged to me as OUTING - which they weren't - but several comments seemed very pointed. It was late at night for me, and none of the clerks seemed to be around, so I hatted it to stop further comments from everyone else. I wouldn't disagree that some of the comments contravened the rules - I can look at it further and direct the Clerks to remove comments that breach the guidelines. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, I emailed you with questions about OS policy. I would have preferred to post them in public so that others could benefit from the answers, but the questions use specific and recent examples that I think are best not shared in public. If you can think of a way to answer the questions publicly while obscuring enough of the details to keep the specific incidents from being traceable, please do so. Thanks, Pine✉22:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had another thought. If you'll send those responses to me by email, I can sanitize the details and combine them with some other things that I've learned to make a FAQ at some point in the future. After checking with the functionaries through the functionary email list to make sure there's consensus on the answers, I can post the FAQ in public if there's consensus that doing so is a good thing. Pine✉22:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you've seen, many decisions are on a case by case basis, meaning FAQ's could only be in general terms - "what sort of things can be oversighted", "who can request oversight" etc. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Also, DeltaQuad and I had a situation come up yesterday that's very similar to the last question that I attempted to clarify for AGK and Arbcom. DeltaQuad and I agreed it may be better for that specific issue to be discussed by the community. In regards to the other questions that I asked, I appreciate the responses from you and AGK. Again, thanks. Pine✉15:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the AfD and the deleted history and so on. And on the surface this just looks like someone trying to reduce their web presence (or at least being written about by others). But I dunno. And I don't know what else, if anything, we at Wikipedia can do for the person at this point (regardless of whether we wish to or not). And I'm also scratching my head wondering "why me"? I was contacted out of the blue and don't recall ever being part of any related discussions. Is there something I'm missing here? - jc3700:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CBLANK allows pages to be deleted as a courtesy - one reason is AfDs where an individual is deemed not sufficiently notable to have a wikipedia article. I have blanked the page and informed the IP (who I assume is the article's subject). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in the AFD as IP 99. The original article was a promotional vehicle. Perhaps you're well aware of the history, but for context I'm providing a link to to the sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archivesharer/Archive. A series of accounts, identified as the same user, attempted to expunge all record of the article and ensuing discussion from numerous user talk pages as well--the nastiness of the discussion was largely self-inflicted. That likely explains why there was so little sympathy when the user initially complained of Google search results. Thanks, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said to others, the WP:BLP position is that if the user isn't notable enough for an article, they shouldn't have a whole bunch of comments about them on the pedia, and the kind of remarks in that afd would be a BLP violation whoever made them. If it is possible to create an article about him that passes notability, then whoever wants to do it is free to go for it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My disagreement--and I think as much was said by others, including one or more admins who weighed in during the AfD [1]--is that there were no defamatory or injurious comments made about the subject. I'm not clear as to where you've seen them. The bile, so to speak, came from the accounts arguing on behalf of the subject's notability, who accused other editors of character assassination, the aim of which, I'm certain, was to delete what they perceived would be an embarrassing outcome. I also think a question is raised as to whether 69.203.115.220 is another sockpuppet of the blocked accounts, and as such, whether their requests are 'more of the same.' If I'm reviewing this correctly, then the blanking is not warranted for BLP concerns. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that if someone is not notable enough for the project, it's not reasonable to keep that kind of text in view when other sites are linking to it. If he's not notable, there's no reason for Wikipedia to mention him. And WP:BLP does not just refer to defamatory material, but to any contentious material. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the subject seems to be of your interest, you are an experienced editor, and know very well how to deal with uncivil summaries/comments in talks, your opinion and presence would be very appreciated in this, as yet, non-consensual and criticaltalk. Thanks, Excalibursword (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your comment at the bottom of the (opened?) (closed?) ANI. I have never seen this before. I have not seen where other editors have expressed a desire to re-open this particular ANI which, as you said, was the criteria for re-opening it. As I am sure you know, all of these editors know each other and are just seemingly making the rules up as they go along. I see the same editors as yesterday with one exception. One editor has just been given a new chance by the Arbitration Committee. You think they would feel lucky.
Of course I will abide, because I always abide by administrators instructions but I would like to continue with my comments there if other editors are also doing so. Is this allowed? Seems like Wiki is changing alot these days Elen. I do not know how you do it without going crazy but you do and I commend you for it. Mugginsx (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At ANI there isn't formal clerking or a formal close structure like there is at RfAR or AfD. Sometimes a discussion gets closed to try to stop it in it's tracks, rather than because it's reached a natural conclusion. And sometimes people disagree with a close on that basis and either revert the close or just keep going. It doesn't usually carry a penalty if several people do it, it's just an indication that the discussion hasn't finished yet. If one person edit wars to overturn a close, then that might warrant a block. I appreciate that it can be a bit disconcerting that there isn't an enforceable rule in this case - I find I have to keep watching what people are saying very closely, to gauage the mood of the participants. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen. I'm wondering if I might request some clarification on the operations of the workshop page for the FLG 2 ArbCom case. It seems to be growing rather unwieldy, and may benefit from some greater involvement by members of the arbitration committee to help keep things on track. Is that generally how these things work? Homunculus (duihua) 22:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I made a request for an injunction (or something) to help clarify appropriate conduct on the workshop page.[2]. Do you think that such a proposal is actionable at this stage? Homunculus (duihua) 17:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check talkpage - the creator of the cairogang page posted on rootsweb at the point where he was starting to create the page, and the Wikipedia article appears to predate that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure we can say for sure s/he was starting the page at that time. Antway, I tried 'wayback machine' to see if there were archived editions of the page in question previous to its appearance on Wikipedia, but no joy. If you're reasonably happy that all is in order, then fine by me. Thanks for taking the trouble and keep up the good work. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another little thing I've noticed is that in the "wooden leg" quote, the author of the Wikipedia article started out describing him as having a tin leg, and changed it to wooden leg, without changing any of the rest of the sentence, at the same time as he added sources. It seems unlikely (although of course not impossible) that he pirated the text on the 3rd of March, then went back to the other site on 27th March, noticed the change, and changed Wikipedia to match. It was a good call to list it as a potential though - that site is used as a RS for other things, and even in this case, it contains more information, particularly primary documents, than the Wikipedia article . --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please make AC aware of proposed urgent motion I have made on workshop page. SarekOfVulcan has moved the Perth article despite participating in the move review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure at this point that any action by any admin would fall into the case, as there's been a whole set of discussion reviewing the RM and a neutral admin closed it with a conclusion that the review endorsed the original close. If Sarek is merely moving it based on the uninvolved closer's decision, there's not a problem with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nomoskedasticity has removed the thread at the article talkpage, which I think is the correct action. I understand there may be a need to discuss whether there is socking, but that talkpage isn't the place to do it. Do you want to file an SPI as you seem reasonably certain who the sockmaster is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a poor choice to post there- I thought as you are the previous blocking admin and have all the previous detail and checkuser authority I would just request you to revisit - no worries - I will see about creating a SPI later. - thanks - Youreallycan16:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks are you talking about?
What allegations are you talking about?
I don't see any!
I have requested declaration of COIs in accordance with WP:COI. --Nenpog (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You attacked me when you wrote "I suggest Guy, that you follow the WP:COI guideline, and declare your COIs, if any. Your attempt to undermine the issue, possibly in order to avoid a COI statement, certainly raises suspicion regarding your own COIs." I am a regular dispute resolution volunteer at WP:DRN. I didn't come to you, you came to me. It is statistically improbable that you would open a discussion about CT scans at WP:DRN only to find that the dispute resolution volunteer who tries to help turns out by an amazing coincidence to be someone with an undeclared COI about CT scans who has never posted a single word on any CT-scan-related page. It is far more likely that you are using accusations of COI as a tactic to get your way in a content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. Nenpog, your insistence that anybody who looks at that source differently has a COI - including demands that they discuss how much they are paid - is frankly ridiculous. Guy (and others) are commenting because they can read scientific articles, not because they are paid by companies who make CT scanners. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:COI instruct, that the first approach should be direct discussion of the COI issue with the editor, referring to the WP:COI guideline. And so I did.
Instead of declaring that he and his benefactors have or don't have financial interest in the subject; a statement that doesn't involve discussion of how much he is paid, (btw where did you come up with that? did you also came to that discussion by chance?); he chooses to attack me and accuse me of violation of WP:x and WP:y.
Guy's objection to something that is a WP:guideline and his attack certainly raises suspicion. I was simply letting him the opportunity of awareness of and of following of the WP:COI guideline. I think that I was doing him a favor. It will be unfortunate if he would fail to recognize that. --Nenpog (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI Does not say what you think it says. You are taking advice that was meant to be applied to situations where there is a reasonable suspicion of a COI and applying it to a situation where the only evidence of a COI is "he dared to disagree with Nenpog". You have zero evidence that I have a COI, and as I already explained, the odds of you choosing a noticeboard with a volunteer who just happens to have a COI concerning CT scans is comparable to the odds of you getting hit by lightning while winning the lottery.
Be honest with yourself here. Realistically, what are the chances that a dispute resolution volunteer with six and a half years of experience AND a very experienced administrator and arbcom member are BOTH wrong about what is in WP:COI and an inexperienced editor like yourself is right? Don't you think that it is more likely that it is you who are wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been a perfunctory deed for you to have told me if my answer to your question was right or wrong. I'll simply add it to the heap of wasted prose I have appended into this god forsaken hell hole of a place My76Strat (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just finished reading the RfA, having not been available to log on prior to my comment to the chap above. I would have said that your answers were right in terms of policy but you did seem to rely a bit on templates to communicate with people, and perhaps a little overeager on the block button. Unfortunately, by the time I came back to it, it had turned into a car crash, you had written those two responses (to Edison and in the discussion section) that I can only describe as 'disintegrating'. These two are beyond any talk of writing styles or poetic bents - is this what happens when you are under significant stress? You don't have to answer me, none of my business, but if it is, then you really would struggle with being an admin, in the same way that a referee who burst into tears everytime a player swore at them would struggle to keep order during the match. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. I'd love to tell you a story about the two guitars and the $5 difference in price. But someone, I think Elen in fact, had some remark about how I love talking about myself, which is also news to me, yet I am on guard to not include things about myself because it is just one more thing on the long list of things I can do and later be charged. My76Strat (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)::In many ways you are right. The only thing I can say is I posted a comment to Edison under his. If something above was see addressed to him let alone two, this is the first I have heard of it. I know the names who spawned my desire to comment, and for sure it wasn't Edison. That's what took me out. I meant everything to Edison as a compliment and every-time I refreshed the page someone else was pissed about what I said to Edison. I suppose I'll have a look to see if I can see what you and the others saw, that wasn't there. My76Strat (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strat, your two comments above - the ones that were made after mine - illustrate another problem. It's common to many people, but you don't always understand what people are saying to you either. First, I at no time said that you "love talking about yourself", or anything remotely similar to that. What I said was that you appeared to have more problems (I believe the phrase I used was 'get your ting in a twost') when you had to talk about yourself. Second, what I said above was that you made TWO responses and ONE of them was to Edison and THE OTHER was in the discussion section. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2012 (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.
Would you be willing to comment on this thread as a knowledgeable, neutral third party? The question is whether asking people commenting on an RFC explicitly to consider NPOV is appropriate or not. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. It's not obvious that you found the proposed RFC text. I've created a new section on the page that should make it crystal clear. If you could take another look, that'd be great (if you already found the proposed RFC statement, then probably nevermind). Thanks again. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you're not watching this page closely enough to have seen this, but here's an analogy that might be helpful in understanding why I think it's a POV issue. Imagine being asked what is NN for N=2 and being given the answer "2+2=4, so the answer is 4".
2+2=4 is a correct statement. It is actually related to what anyone would consider the correct answer in an intrinsic sort of way (it uses the unmentioned but "obvious" simplification that for N=2, N+N and N*N and NN are all identical). And, yes indeed, 4 is the correct (numeric) answer. But yet, as a matter of TRUTH or Truth, there's something not quite right about this answer.
Relating this to the MHP, the "simple" solutions presented by popular sources are saying (what at least some sources say is) the equivalent of 2+2=4. The "conditional" solutions presented by the vast majority of sources in the field of probability are saying the equivalent of (with no comment about "simple" solutions) NN is N*N*N... (N times), which for N=2 is N*N, so the answer is 2*2=4. The (smaller) number of sources criticizing the "simple" solutions are saying "simple" solutions are "correct, but ... shaky", or "misleading", or "incomplete", or "[don't] address the problem posed" or are [bluntly] "false" - and these sources demonstrate the issue by showing "simple" solutions fail if you use them to solve (the equivalent of) NN for some other value of N.
Martin is saying he wants the main "solution" section of the article to present "simple" solutions (those saying the equivalent of "2+2=4 is the answer") "with no disclaimers that they do not solve the right problem or are incomplete", and to include both the (conditional) solution typically presented in the field (showing the equivalent of NN for N=2 is N*N = 2*2 = 4) AND the criticism of the "simple" solutions (which show the equivalent of 2+2=4) in a later section "for experts only".
I'm saying this creates a structural POV.
The only TRUTH I'm interested in here is the Truth about what the sources say. Martin continues to argue that the sources critical of "simple" solutions aren't saying what they clearly say (IMO, from a standpoint of TRUTH, explicitly denying Truth). -- Rick Block (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(pardon for intruding) Rick, you should face what I said in my edit in "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Archive 4 11:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)":
»As known, this is a conflict between "different aspects", different points of view. And so it matters what reliable sources "really say". We should be careful to correctly interpret those statements of sources, and what they (antinomy) really say.
Up to now, obviously misinterpreting some source, sometimes just "the only one aspect" has been "read into" the statements of sources, although the source actually and effectively just confirms "the other aspect" as well. We need to deal very carefully with the sources, to avoid that the sense of source statements is not reproduced unilaterally, obviously misinterpreting the source.« – Please read again what the sources really say. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have an observation based upon closely watching this (sometimes participating sometimes lurking) since the arbcom case closed. I have never seen a case where Rick described what the conflict is and Martin agreed -- Martin always says that Rick is not describing the actual dispute. Likewise, I have never seen a case where Martin described what the conflict is and Rick agreed -- Rick always says that Martin is not describing the actual dispute. I have no reason to believe that the above is anything other than one more example of this. I have no idea how to solve this problem, but I know that agreeing with or disagreeing with a description that only one party accepts will never lead to a resolution. On the other hand, talking at each other forever isn't working all that well either. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A database like, https://libris.kb.se/, doesn’t publish non peer reviewed scientific material
Well, I got my answer [3]. In Wikipedia terms, having your thesis marked does not constitute peer review, and having it placed in a database like this does not constitute publication in a peer reviewed journal. So until your material is published in a peer reviewed journal, I would not think it was appropriate to use in the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: A database like, https://libris.kb.se/, doesn’t publish non peer reviewed scientific material.
KB in, https://libris.kb.se/, stand for the "Royal Library of Stockholm" for god sake
"LIBRIS is a national search service providing information on titles held by Swedish university and research libraries, as well as about twenty public libraries. Here you can find books, periodicals, articles, maps, posters, printed music, electronic resources, etc."[4]. It doesn't say anything about having only peer-reviewed material? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2012 (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.
This is DriveByWire (you blocked me) here on my IP address. I echo the request above for Check User. My name is from these articles: Drive by wireFly-by-wire. It is not meant to be anagram of anything. Incorrect socking accusations are very damaging. Until that is resolved, my block prevents me even trying to make a fresh start. 84.209.89.214 is the address that my ISP puts on every IP packet that comes from me. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, jeg er i Norge og jeg kan godt norsk også. Er dette et problem? Vi har et vakkert land hvor befolkningstallet ligger over fem millioner. Praktisk talt har hvert norsk hjem adgang til Internettet. Våre barn deler din sterk interesse for disse You don't need a translator to use the link. DriveByWire 84.209.89.214 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elen, may I ask for your opinion? Do the following sentences from Peter Tomsen, The Wars of Afghanistan, p. 565 (which can be checked here):
"Increasing numbers of Pashtun Taliban were secretly contacting him [anti-Taliban leader Abdul Haq] as Taliban popularity trended downward. In the late 1990s and 2000, Haq's home in Peshawar and the Karzai residence in Quetta became the main gathering sides for tribal elders, commanders ... dissatisfied with the Taliban."
verify the following line:
"Abdul Haq received increasing numbers of defecting Pashtun Taliban ..."
I would have said not - the quote does not specifically use the term 'defecting' or say that they were 'defecting' - they could for example have been trying the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' strategy, aiming to oust the existing Taliban leadership and replace it with themselves as a rebranded Taliban, which would not be 'defection' as the term is usually used. But really this is what WP:RS/N is for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is known that they were by this action defecting to him. But if you say, you can't get that from this specific source, that's fine. Thank you very much for your fast input. JCAla (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2012 (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.
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you with this question. I have the feeling that you may have pointed me in the right direction before but I failed to follow up on it. You evidently recall the case of the Hockey editor with an aversion to Czech surnames. There was something about a larger number of moves to "accent-less" titles, and creating and editing a large amount of redirects from diacritics, thereby preventing moves being reverted. Can you point me to the specific guideline about when it is not correct to edit a redirect from diacritics? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2012 (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 request you to refrain from intervening in this matter.
I think that the formal language for that is that I ask your recusal from this case.
I ask that because you have previously intervened in several stages which led to that request, and seemed to have already made up your mind about it, and you seem to have taken a side.
The knowledge you had while intervening was partial, because only now I present my view on the matter without reservations.
I think that your recusal would benefit the case, even if only to preserve the appearance of lack of prejudice, wherein by appearance of lack prejudice I mean the appearance that the case wasn't decided in advance with partial evidence, before all facts were presented. --Nenpog (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quick overview for anyone reading this who might be wondering what Nenpog is talking about:
There is a vote to close the Falung Gong 2 case which is not yet passing. Your votes could be decisive as there are one proposed finding of fact and three proposed remedies which do not currently pass due to missing arbitrator votes. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do not mind being contacted in this manner; the rules of engagement here are not clear, and I don't want to act in a manner that is viewed as violating some unspoken rules of propriety. But I wanted to quickly draw your attention to a couple threads on the FLG 2 case. It would be encouraging to know that this material has been read and considered, since these threads relate to the votes on which there has been some differences of opinion (similarly, it is heartening to know that evidence pages are read — I really just don't know who reads what).
I am bringing this to your attention since you recently blocked User:DriveByWire. I believe the User:Ochson is a sockpuppet of the same editor. User:Ochson recently created a thread at the ref desk forging my signature: [7] and erasing his own autosignature: [8]. This was after I reported him here [9] for editing another user's comments to change their meaning entirely. I have filed an ANI here: [10] but am hoping for your immediate help. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, dont hesitate about rangblocking Vodafone mobile IP's if the need should arise. I used to work on their (line) service management dept. They have total internal logging of when, where, who (if contract) is assigned an IP and at what time. So any interruption in their service to their customers they are more than willing and able to cut off the offenders if they should cause any problems for their other customers. They (in the UK and AUS) used to have constant issues with getting their ranges banned from various high-traffic sites due to the throwaway nature of their PAYG dongles, so they take any interruptions quite seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not the only one who got the reference to Alice's Restaurant (i.e. circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back). And since I'm here, I'd like to take a moment to thank you for serving as an Arbitrator. I expect it's not a fun job and it's probably even worse than I can imagine. I'm thankful that you, and others, are willing to take on this task and serve the community in this way. It's much appreciated. Best regards. 64.40.57.60 (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly the only person who has commented on it - perhaps too obscure for others these days. I feel you ought to win something, so have some spaghetti and meatballs (straight from the Alice's restaurant cookbook). first prize Thank you for your kind thoughts - I do try to do my best for the community (even if one inevitably cannot please all of the people all of the time) and I do really appreciate your acknowledgement. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there were other lurkers who got it, and apart from its pertinence it reminded me of the brilliant This song is my song (also by AG = Arlo Guthrie) at A Prairie Home Companion (searching for "AG:" finds the first part, and the last is at the end of the page; it is of course based on This Land Is Your Land). Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen, that's very kind of you. Thanks, I love spaghetti.
@John, glad to know I wasn't the only one that got it and I must admit I love both Arlo and Woody's work. A great musical family. Kind regards. 64.40.54.48 (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Rajesh Mehta and I am the producer of a film titled DRAPCHI which you will find here.
The poster of this film needs to change immediately and replaced by another one.
I have no idea about how one does this..A friend had uploaded the new version a few weeks ago but again an old one has cropped up.I need to get rid of this and replace it with another file.can you help me please?
The old upload claimed to be the cover of the dvd, and the fair use rationale related entirely to it being the dvd cover. Your friend can upload the poster as long as they change the rationale to say it is the film poster, and explain on the file page why this non-free image is the best one to use. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me why the Wikipedia page Sand is locked? I cannot imagine sand being a hot button issue and causing problems. I would like to correct something in the article because it is locked. When will it be unlocked? Thank you.--74.240.238.238 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been accidentally left like that since 2008 - the notes from the protecting admin say to remove the protection in a little while, so there must have been some kind of fuss at the time. It's unprotected now, please correct away - and if you can come up with any references, looks like that would be good too. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I would like to kindly ask You for help and to use the oversight feature...
One of the contributors keeps posting my personal information and legal threats in [[11]] (Life on earth External link section). The reason of this behavior is quite simple - I have deleted (in good faith) link to his page from External links in the article (to prevent people suffering from cancer from purchasing a device that is sold as "curing cancer and normalizing ones body aura"). More contributors agree with me and the user in question starts to use personal attacks and revert their edits too. Thanks for any help/response. Panszpik (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has since created an account, but has not done any of these violations with the named account: just engaged in a long, vituperative and unconstructive argument about the alleged wonderfulness of his theories and about how we are all ignorants around here. --Orange Mike | Talk15:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for Your help, someone had already overseen majority of those edits. I have sent the remaining two comments' data via Emailuser/Oversight page. -- Panszpik (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just mentioned you in a proposal I made regarding an editor blocked for sockpuppetry. After I did so, I realized I probably shouldn't go throwing your name around, even in a complimentary fashion, without alerting you. The discussion is here (collapsed in the drawer). It refers to this now-archived SPI.Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your kind thoughts, but I'm not convinced he's actually a net benefit. He's not just creating sequential accounts, or accounts for different parts of the wiki. Those account edits overlap, giving the impression he's multiple people. His editing is also extremely tendentious in places - I don't care how smart he is. And he doesn't agree he's done anything wrong - in fact he sets out to give the impression of friends in high places - Hopefully, wheels are already in motion on my behalf. Unless he submits an appeal that recognises the problems, I don't think he's likely to be unblocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Elen, this calms me. I just have this deep aversion to silencing anyone, and the former teacher in me refuses to give up on someone learning. Upon reflection, I realize what my anxieties were: I didn't think he should be allowed to accuse me of being a bad editor in the course of making his appeal, and the fact that nobody told him to stop made me wonder what was up. I think the right decision was made originally, but if it were to be reversed, I strongly believe that close monitoring should be required. At the AfD for the one article, I made a promise not to abandon it, to develop it based on the recommended sources and outline that emerged in the discussion, and to make sure it was neither propagandized nor bowdlerized. I tried for months, but was unable to keep that promise because he made it so stressful. Had to take it off my watchlist. I've never quite regained my sense of pleasure in writing articles after that, since I don't make promises lightly. I'm going to strike some of my comment on his user page, and shut up and trust the powers that be. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's an Irish pronunciation of (I presume) idiots - but means 'tomfool' rather than necessarily being dense or thick. Terry Wogan employs it in that manner, as did my mum back in the day. Someone told me that the equivalent pronunciation in US English is "idjits" --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common in the American South and Appalachia (my parents used 'idjit' with exasperated affection for clueless youth). One of my lit profs liked to tell the story of how he saw William Faulkner subjected to a lengthy, pretentious interpretation (by a grad student?) of what the character Benjy in The Sound and the Fury "really'" signified. Faulkner listened solemnly, and when the verbiage ceased, drawled "I always thought he was just an idjit." Cynwolfe (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raul and Br'er are both intelligent users. The problem is that each seems to drive the other to behave foolishly - or at least that's how it appears to me. Grown men (I think they are both blokes) should not need interaction bans when editing a website. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, sorry for coming directly but I have a concern about TDA's sudden involvement inthe Men's Rights issue, expressed here. I'll note that TDA has also started commenting on Talk:Feminism an article I have significantly contributed too. Given that it was clearly expressed that a) KC did nothing wrong and b) that any further moves should go to Move Review and c) this looks a bit like hounding (especially in light of this[12]). If this is an AE or ANi matter I'll go there but would like some input. I'm going to contact PhilKnight and SirFozzie directly to. If I'm overreacting I'm more than happy to redact and AGF--Caililtalk12:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you meant to change Penyulap's block settings, as your comment ("reinstating talk page access") is in, err, dynamic tension with your action ("cannot edit own talk page"). Bishonen | talk20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I see the comment you posted on P's page as I was typing the above, so now I know. Still, the log is confusing. And I think your action is a nonsense, incidentally. Bishonen | talk20:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Urgh, argh! Need coffee. Have amended the log. Peny has created a further sock - User:Bittybattybitbotisnotabot. All that strange convo about being harrassed by socks - it would appear the socks are of Peny's creation. I don't know what to make of it . I know Pesky thinks that Peny is ASD - which Peny has always denied - but I'm a project manager not a head medic, so I'm not even going to guess. I'm not sure it's doing Peny any good editing the talkpage and creating socks (if the problem is as Pesky believes) and I don't believe it's doing the project any benefit in other cases. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an ant it's an ent, well it ent an ent, it's an entropy. Thus when Pen refers to "the equation" I would assume that like me Pen interprets Wikipedia as a non-closed dynamical system. So, for example it's fairly easy to model the low-energy states of this system under various constraints, and the constraints that the community and the Foundation currently seem to have in mind do not result in the types of outcome that the community and the Foundation want, basically due to flawed assumptions and over-simplification. Still less do they result in the types of outcome that the more - I might say - visionary of us want. These limitations Pen finds discouraging, however it seems to me that they are transient, either the projects will adapt to overcome them when they are smacked in the face with them, or alternatives will be developed. In the grand scheme of things it does not greatly matter which, so long as Evil™ does not occur. Nonetheless the difference between operating, for example, en:WP as an open welcoming community, rather than as a police state - block first, ask questions later - is sufficient to bring the curves forward significantly, and as such is a serious detriment to mankind. RichFarmbrough, 04:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
If either of you can persuade Penyulap to stop creating sock accounts while blocked, they can have their talkpage access back to expound further on these fascinating topics. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Added - although I have to say that carrying on a rant about how they can't use SPI and CU are unable to help them deal with sockpuppets, and "sockpuppets cause problems for me while I try to edit wikipedia", when the sockpuppets belong to Penyulap [13] strikes me as extremely odd. There's something different, it seems to me, to the way Bishonen and her socks relate to each other. But what do I know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily persuade Pen of that, indeed Pen has volunteered as much.
You need to convince me that, though, Pen is creating socks on en:wp. I have seen no evidence of any abusive socking at any time, the worst that has happened is a slightly foolish redirect, which was not made anonymously. I have explained what Pen was saying in the comments he made, it really was pretty clear, and has been remarked on elsewhere that Pen has a way of spotting abusive (rather than non-abusive) socks that is orthogonal from those currently being used. To block someone because they are good at spotting abusive socks, and to justify it because they ran a non-abusive sock on another project seems ludicrous. RichFarmbrough, 01:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
@Nobody Ent. That's not the flaw. The flaw is that if we were under attack from an interstellar ant colony, I do not believe that the "Government of Earth" would need to employ the bizarre strategy of training children in secret to carry out the attack on the ants' homeworld, not knowing what they were doing, because no adult could be persuaded to carry out genocide. I think they would find plenty of willing and able adult volunteers who would have no problem with bombing the shit out of the Buggers, and I have no doubt they could spin it to the general public. In this respect, Starship Troopers is way more accurate than Ender's Game. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The premise wasn't that the adults couldn't be persuaded, it was that the kid geniuses were more capable tactically/strategically. It's been a decade or so since I read it but I don't recall kids actually carrying out the attacks. Nobody Ent16:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. Ender and his team believe they are carrying out a final simulator test. Ender breaks the rule and sacrifices most of his team (of course he believes they are just 'out', not dead) so that the remnant can launch a warhead that destroys both the alien fleet and the planet. Only after this is he told that he has in fact committed xenocide. The politico-military establishment created this secret project because they believed that the world would not accept themn doing this, and they would be unable to persuade enough adults to take part. It's the premise that underpins the whole story, only revealed at the end, and necessary for Scott Card to position Ender as a man who committed/was tricked/was forced into committing an unspeakable crime as a child, and write a further dozen books on how he turned out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the book supports your conclusion. What Mazer tells Ender is that an individual who came to know the buggers well enough to defeat them would love them too much to actually do so. He also states only Ender and he (Mazer) understand the buggers well enough to fight them effectively, but Mazer can't do it because he understands the cost/consequences of war too much. I think Scott Card is smart enough to know there's never been a shortage of those willing to do harm to others (have ya' seen ANI lately?) ... the point is the not Enders weren't capable, not that they weren't willing. Nobody Ent15:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I vividly remember flinging the book away, hugely disappointed, because of its nonsense ending, and I've never read anything else that he wrote because of it. The basic psychology is shot to shit. But I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you would find it both fascinating and flingworthy. The only book I recall wanted to fling was The Gate to Women's Country. I think Card's most powerful writing is buried in The Worthing Saga but the overall book is so long I generally don't recommend it. The followup to Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead is interesting in that it takes the story in an entirely different direction. Unlike, say, Robert B. Parker who made a living writing the same Spenser book over and over with slight variations... Nobody Ent00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me started on Sheri Tepper. That one got turned into firelighters. It always seemed to me that Speaker for the Dead was the book that Card wanted to write, but Enders Game was what he had to write to get published. You do have to give him that though - he didn't just keep rewriting the same book. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2012 (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.
Elen I prefer no dialogue with you. I've found your comments unhelpful, grating, unfair, condescending. Can you possibly go back to leaving me be? I certainly haven't initiated anything with you. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While you continue to be unable to get on with your co-editors, you are bound to continue to attract the attention of administrators. You only escaped a block last time because Dennis stepped in to bat for you, and you can't even get on with him. You should think about that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about it, and sorry Elen, I disagree with your views and find them grating. My life at WP would be happier without you messaging me. (It was your idea to re-initiate messages to my attention, please oblige my request and don't anymore.) Thank you and best of luck to you on the Wiki. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you find anybody who says anything to you that you don't want to hear grating, I can't say I'm surprised at your comment. However, you appear to be an intelligent person, and capable of amending your own behaviour (since it is a truism that the only person that you have the power to change is yourself). You would find things less stressful if you managed to find a way to temper your reaction to the continuous irritiation that other users seem to bring to you, but that is of course up to you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the mischaracterizations, the false accusations, the exaggerations that I find grating, and not as you say. I'm just not into it, like the irresponsible culture here is. Even in this very thread you exaggerate and mischaracterize, ergo: grating. No more from you, please leave me be. Thank you and best of luck on the Wiki. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean. Dennis went in to bat for you, but on observing that your responses are sometimes 'intense' you blew up in his face. I note this, and you blow up in my face. You appear to assume bad faith of anybody who says anything you even slightly don't like. This is not the way to a happy editing experience. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your characterizations are odd and unfair to me. I came to Dennis's Talk on his invitation for a discussion. There was no discussion and instead found myself on receiving end of nit-picks. I did nothing inappropriate or unprofessional to cause User:ChessPlayerLev to go to Dennis's Talk and complain about me, he seemed to have done that in response to my objection for calling me "dude" on my User talk in a context where that kind of informality wasn't appropriate. As a result of my good-faith appearance at Dennis's Talk, I'm piled-onto by CPL, Dennis, and you in ANI-like fashion. That wasn't the purpose of my being there, and wasn't anyway balanced for objecting to being called "dude" at my User talk which seems to have been the immediate cause of CPL asking Dennis's intervention. Prior to my objecting to CPL's use of "dude", there were exchanges between CPL and myself at User talk:ihardlythinkso#Chessmetrics and Talk:WikiProject Chess#Chessmetrics and Talk:WikiProject Chess#Category:Chess theoreticians on those corresponding topics. I expressed my opinions there, and so did others, and there was nothing bad faith or unprofessional in my conduct in those discussions whatever (although as is his usual, CPL was harsh and demanding, not exactly professional or easy to discuss with, for example ascribing an idea I never proposed to me, then calling said idea "laughable", and so on). There was nothing at all wrong or non-collegial in my conduct in those discussions, Elen. So I have no understanding of the basis for CPL's request for intervention at Dennis's Talk, other than his taking the immediate dislike of my objection to calling me "dude", and attempting to blow it up inappropriately into a kick-fest against me, for no immediate causes, but for past bad blood from past bad incidents I've endeavored to put behind me but which he hasn't, is my guess. I was in no mood, on that basis, to sit waiting at Dennis's Talk in good faith, for a discussion which might have dealt with the bad blood CPL still operates on, however, there was no discussion in the cards, and CPL used the section at Dennis's Talk merely as a smear attack to service his bad blood feelings over past incidents, without any intention to have any genuine discussion to perhaps deal with his issues. I did not come to Dennis's Talk for a generalized nit-picking, and, there were no recent behaviors from me at all, warranting a concern about my editor collegiality. So I objected. Then Dennis got more forceful, inappropriately. Then, he started to unjustifiably put blame on me, for the fact no discussion with CPL ensued, which was ridiculous and an abusive contention to make, since no discussion was in the cards to begin with, and I came in good faith and was open to discussing CPL's bad blood issues with him in a controlled environment (with mediator). (I still am, but, that takes two.) Then you come to Dennis's Talk, with more generalized picking-on, and that was unhelpful and inappropriate also. Then when I've requested a return to our previous status of disengagement, you've continued the overgeneralized picking-on here, and, I really do not deserve that, and find it unacceptable too. Thus the request for no further interfaces between us. I do not have to, and don't, accept the environment at WP whereby editors freely and irresponsibly attack and accuse and abuse one another, and, I'm not going to participate at the Wiki in that manner, which is the existing culture here. If you really do have a complaint about something I've written in reasonable recent past, then I'm very open to discuss with you about it. Ditto Dennis. Ditto CPL. However, the over-generalized complaints are nothing more than digs, amount to scrappiness, throwing mud, and I don't see that as either useful, fair, professional, or even ethical. So now, are we done here? You have honest explaination from me here. I don't and didn't wish to continue this thread, because I perceived that all my thoughts above were intuitively obvious already, to everyone, and that I needn't spell them out. But I have now for your benefit, because you're continuing this thread for whatever reason, I don't know. Thank you for reading. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. I do wish there were a legitimate "room" at the WP whereby users could hash out their differences, without regard to civility blocks, and let their hair down, to get at bottom of grievences and bad bloods, with one another, with a skilled mediator present to guide the brawl to make sure it stays on tracks that lead to a productive end. Other than WP:WQA, I don't think there is any such resource, and, WQA really isn't for that purpose, either. But I wish there were such a forum, I would be a glad participant with CPL (however, I probably would not become uncivil nearly as much as he, but I wouldn't be bothered by incivilities since being free to express them would help him get to the core of his difficultues, and the rules for such engagement would be in understanding of that and allow it). I can see some real benefits of a "room" such as that for WP, but the dialogue there would have to be publically non-viewable (probably viewable only by admins, like some other WP pages). The deal is though, such a "room" to let one's hair down does not exist at WP, Dennis's Talk was surely not equatable to such a "room", Dennis is not a skilled mediator, and most importantly and critically, it takes two to tango (two editors who genuinely want to achieve the result of reaching a satisfactory working relationship, without the problem of bad blood interfering with their ability to relate to the other user objectively when discussing article issues). I really feel I have no bad blood issues which prevent me from working with CPL objectively. However, I don't believe he is in that space, judging by his overt attempts to get aggressive with attacks and attempt to smear and bias others against me, let alone overt requests for a block. So he really could use such discussion, as Dennis suggested, to get to the bottom of his issues. But the big stickler, is that participation in such discussion as that, requires a motive and genuineness to achieve something, a better working relationship, on the part of both participants. (Right now CPL's formula for better working relationship with me, is to get me blocked or banned, or to intimidate so that I do not get in his way with good-faith editor disagreements, which he consistently interprets as personal grudge behavior on my part, which it is not.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I think I have been clear enough. What I am against, is general nit-picking, when there was no immediate purpose or cause. The immediate purpose and cause at your Talk, was supposed to be a discussion. You never engaged CPL to enter discussion, or to drop his smearing comments. The problematic side of getting CPL into a real discussion as you imagined, I believe, is more vast than you knew (you said you didn't review his edit histories), and in addition, beyond your capabilities, or anyone's really, who isn't a skilled mediator. (Plus, the forum wasn't robust enough to support it; thus, the "room to let hair down" idea described to Elen.) So in the end, the discussion, which never started, was doomed at the outset. What was achieved instead, was a nit-pick fest against me, and, it wasn't what I was there for, and I found it wholly inappropriate, and distasteful too. You say you expected me to be the "biggest man", and start with some admission of fault or whatever, but Dennis, if you read my notes to Elen, you can see that I'm confident I was entirely professional with CPL, both at my Talk, and at the other pages, in recent dialogues. So, your expectation of admission of something, is out of context with anything, because I committed no offense, which drove CPL to your Talk. (As mentioned, I believe he went to your Talk, because he was miffed, that I objected to his use of "dude" to address me, at my Talk, and immediately responded with attacks, and a request for intervention from you. But there was no crime to report, only, IMO, CPL's working out his bad blood for me, with more attacks, and venues like ANI, where administrators have taught him, it is okay to spew baseless attacks in complaint of me, without repercussion, without caution to stop, and even to suppport him in doing so, because said editors [Toddst1 and Blade] could care less to stop something bad happening to me anyway.) You say your goals were clearly to get CPL and I into discussion, but as asked of you at your Talk, I saw no evidence of you engaging CPL for that purpose at all, Dennis, so, why aren't your actions there matching your "intentions"? Perhaps you need to think about doing a better job with matching them. I hung around long enough to give you plenty opportunity to do so. You chose instead to keep your attention on me, to nit-pick. My way to understand this was to recollect you may be carrying over a resentment regarding the "fear of honesty" thread which embarrassed you, but if that is wrong, then I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but then I'm left with no way to understand the uninterrupted focus to nit-pick me in that case, when you should have been engaging CPL to enter discussion. (Also, after mutiple assurances to you that I was open to dialogue with CPL, as long as a reasonably civil atmosphere could be maintained, you somehow concluded I'd said the opposite, in fact listing four or five quotations I never said or thought, such as "you said you'd have nothing to do with this discussion", "you said you wanted no part of this discussion", "you refused to participate in this discussion", "you said you wouldn't participate", "you said you didn't want to participate". [This was especially amazing to me, because you packed all these four or five false assertions into one paragraph, and that paragraph immediately followed text from me correcting you an additional time, that I was opened and not closed to proposed discussion with CPL. So Dennis, quite odd behavior, and unfair to me. You even used the false arguments to blame the failure of any discussion ensuing, onto me. This was quite unfair, and I find it even scape-goating on your part, which is a form of dishonesty. The fact is there was no discussion in the cards to begin with, and, the venue and your own capability as mediator, unknown to you perhaps, were not up to the task, taking into consideration the other user, CPL, who you admitted you weren't familiar with his past edit histories.]) In conclusion, I have no need to categorize you or Elen or any other editor as "bad" or "good". I simply am not comfortable on receiving end of unwarratned false accusations, over-generalized nit-picks without purpose, and especially smears and personal attacks from CPL. So, I'd like to distance myself by disengaging editors who have proclivity to do that. (Which is the usual culture at WP; there seems to be no real civility enforcement, it's random or selective, and the things that especially grate me, false accusations, are seen at WP as no more than mild incivilities, and I disagree with that. I also am uncomfortable with the over-generalizations and nit-picks without purpose, for their logical end seems to be paramount to complete domination and insistence of submission of an individual editor if they have an opposing view. Or another logical end might be, that I apologize that I was "ever born", and ask to go back into the "womb", to make said nit-pickers happy once again. All these notions are ridiculous of course, and absurd at their face, but are consistent with the irrationality of over-generalized nit-picking without purpose, as I am only human, and have normal human response when confronted by it continuously from editors who feel self-justified to apply comments like that, while ignoring personal attacks and gross incivilities I've received from other content editors. I don't like it very much! And I ask you to stop. (It is your choice to stop or not, and Elen's. If an editor keeps it up, I do feel they are responsible, but, they are a part of the culture at WP which fosters said behaviors, so, the culture is really at least equally to "blame". When someone doesn't "fit" into their community culture, or in a school environment perhaps, there are numerous pressures and harassments, to conform. I've simply decided I won't, re the irresponsible culture at WP, where one is free to make comments and accuses, that one is not prepared to solidly back up, which are easy to make, and which make the accusing editor feel better when they say it, as it implicitly makes them superior, and without said faults, which is often perposterous. People shouldn't throw stones, unless they really have a case. That is not the culture at WP. False accuses and irresonsible comments are free-form approved, instead. I don't want to participate in that, or be on receiving end of that. That is my choice.) I don't see why either of you find reason to give me the attention you have, you are each busy admins, and I am a small, insignificant content contributor and copyeditor. I just want to be left alone. I'm perplexed and confused and hurt and dismayed at WP, to be on receiving end of false unwarranted attacks, for example when I helped protect the Wiki at Dawn Marie Psaltis by keeping out incendiary Youtube accusations against the BLP subject, I was attacked viciously by CPL, who has later accused me of also of stalking his edits. When the fact is, I learned from CPL's past edits at Paul Morphy, that he, as relatively new editor, does not have grasp of WP:BRD, WP:VERIFY, and at the Psaltis article, WP:BLPREMOVE. He is prone to push for deletion of articles and content, based on little more than hyperbole and aggressive opinion, and not fact are reasoned argument. I won't say I've been perfect with CPL in my entire edit exchanges with him, but, that is past, and my edit exchanges with him in reasonable past have been fine. My relationship with CPL started off-tracks when he falsely accused me of calling User:Jasper Deng and User:Elen of the Roads names "asshats" and "idiots", and in my immaturity as editor then (1 yr) I got emotional in response to the accuse, and opened an ANI immediately to complain. I would not do that today. Nevertheless, I learned that ANI is a place that no decent person should go, because of the irresponsibility there (many top editors have the same view). And CPL has never apologized for the scathing fabrication, in public Wiki-space, that I used those names against people. (His "apology" was a back-handed exploitation to get in even more insult.) I have not let the incident affect my edit behavior regards CPL in current time, having discipline to successfully forgive it, or see it as over and in the past. Unfortunately, CPL, new editor fundamentally, has been taught the wrong things by admins - that it is plenty okay to open an ANI on anyone and skip other dispute resolution procedures first, and, attacks and accuses can be made whether factual or fair or not, and there will be no accountability. And now CPL has also learned, he can generate an ANI-like attack & smear atmosphere at an editor's Talk as well, without the need to even open an ANI, while still feeling total comfort in opening an ANI whenever he feels, for whatever displeasure, without danger of being sent elsewhere, for more appropriate venue. It is experiences like this, that turn me off of the Wiki, and wonder how admins, have not corrected his understandings, and in fact end up indirectly supporting his aggressiveness and abuses of process and my editorship, when he should be instead coached toward better collegiate behaviors. In short, you guys are sending him the wrong messages, and assume the responsibility for proliferating his hostilities towards me, by approval stamp of his actions, when they are abuses of process, and abuses of an editor. It's not good for the Wiki, but, it suits your sense of "okay to do, we're behind it". I can only fairly conclude, there are prejudices at play, for e.g. Elen or you carry grudges, or, your priorities are wrong, in what you support as acceptable behavior, and what you admonish. Whatever. I just know, I'm not comfortable with the results, want to be left alone, and want to make my contributions in peace. The amount of drama on WP is absurd. CPL himself, suggested hypocritically that I shouldn't waste time "arguing with him" and should instead invest that time improving chess articles, however, I've had no desire to argue with him, I've proposed competing ideas when he's suggested delete of content or category or article on occasions, as I should, as good-faith thoughtful editor. But on the other hand, CPL has no reservation whatever to open dialogue with Dennis, and open at ANI, and threaten to open at ANI, waste my entire Saturday, and Dennis's, and thank Dennis for his contribution of his Saturday, since the results seemed to give CPL a feeling of support, if he likes to open another attack ANI, or whatever he decides to do. This is complete hypocrisy, by bathing in drama for an agenda against me, while saying at same time "I'm only here to improve articles" and the like ("if you stopped wasting your time arguing with me", etc.). CPL needs guidance, and no admin likes to give it to him. So, I want to be left out of the drama, out of the bully-environment. But I'm not entertaining arguments, from either you Dennis or Elen, of so general a nature they equate to "go back to the womb", etc. That is why I specifically avoid asking you guys questions such as: "What the H do you want from me, anyway??", because, it will predictably feed your need to nit-pick with over-generalized criticisms, which I see as your own weaknesses, that are unfair, unhelpful, without purpose, but feel good to make, serve your apparent need to scold or shame or whatever. I really don't relate to it. If you have something you object to, I'm willing to discuss it. The fact that Dennis accused me at his Talk of "you read between the lines too much, stop doing that" and then moments later "you aren't understanding what Elen really meant, which is different from what she really wrote, try and get the difference", is contradictory crazy-making, and an example where all this leads, that I have been talking about. Unhelpful and not completely rational. I'm not comfortable with that, and that is my entire message here, in a word. Thank you for reading. I want this laid to rest now. Thank you and good luck on the Wiki. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, since all we have is words typed into an edit box, all we have to go on is the words. It may seem nitpicky to you, but man, you're reaction here really illustrates what Dennis and I are saying. " nit-pick with over-generalized criticisms" doesn't even make sense. Nit-picking is very specific. If either Dennis or I have made an observation about your editing - and it is only about your editing, neither of us know you in real life - it is specifically based on things we have seen in your editing. It's not generalised at all. This conversation is an exact example of what you do - any attempt to make any comment about your edits is met with these increasing walls of text insisting that you are being wronged and attacked. That's why I keep telling you to just read your own edits, and try to imagine they are made by a third party you are in dialogue with. How would you react to them? How would you prefer the other party to react if you had pointed out that (for instance) their source didn't meet the reliable source requirements. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "nit-pick", you're right, it is the wrong word, since I never meant with specificity, and that is the problem. A better word is "pick on" or "hen-peck". The "increasing walls of text" was for your, and later Dennis's benefits, because you guys keep complaining about things you don't understand the answers to. "This conversation is an exact example of what you do" is an exact example of what you have been doing, Elen (i.e., hen-peck, with unfair and untrue over-generalized criticisms), which makes me request again: please leave me alone, please. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. To answer your first Q, I would react just fine. But I wouldn't do the things you guys do, to generate those explanatory answers in the first place. Regarding your second Q, I don't know what you're referring to - it sounds like something hypothetical - to be able to answer. But enough of this. It's accomplishing nothing. I want you to leave me alone now. Please quit what you're doing, it's become nagging, and baiting. I'm unwatching your Talk now, and won't be replying here again. Once more, best of luck to you on the Wiki. Truely. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you will unwatch. It obviously is accomplishing nothing, you are still accusing Dennis of attacking you for making the mildest observations about your editing style (that you seem intense, and read rather too much into things)Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand why Penyulap's talk page required full protection. I was inclined to leave a comment but feel the matter has now spilled over to require user's like myself to bear the brunt of an unsupportable action. What have you prevented by disallowing my access and that of others? 76StratString da Broke da (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that reply, I'll inquire of Jc37 what we are preventing with this additional measure. I apologize if I have aggrieved you in any way; that was not my intent. 76StratString da Broke da (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why it was protected, as well. I'm a bit concerned that he's had his talk page access removed again, with you saying Blocked editors are generally allowed to edit their own talkpage in order to request an unblock or discuss activity that might lead to an unblock. I know there's been some discussion on what editors are allowed to use their talk page for while blocked, but as far as I'm aware the consensus was that it's not only to request an unblock / move towards unblocking. I'm also a bit concerned that you seem to take a bit of a leap from "Pen created another account" to "all those socks he's talking about are his own" – I can't see how that one's logical. I suspect that he may have created that to emphasise / illustrate his point on how fast it is to create socks, compared with the SPI/CU processes for removing them. Please forgive me for being a bit waffly etc., and maybe not entirely on the ball, but (as you know) Real Life™ is a bit challenging and exhausting at the moment! (two hours driving every day to do those hospital visits, etc.!) With regard to the possible socks he's talking about, I'm personally absolutely sure that he's onto something there. I know he doesn't want to discuss what he's noticing on-wiki, so as not to educate the socks as to how he's spotting them. I don't think we should dismiss, out of hand, the possibility that Pen may very well have developed some sock-detecting stuff which possibly equals or exceeds current methods. Regardless of what various people may think of him, in some areas he is a pure genius, and I think he is intellectually capable of having come up with some thing or things which the SPI/CU team might well be able to make very good use of. I think what we need here is for a SPI/CU real specialist to be in email contact with Pen, with a really open mind as to what he may be onto and capable of doing, and able to ride the bumps (or wait them out) as and when he gets overly wordy, etc. We shouldn't dismiss what he's saying, or the possibility that he may have some advanced / improved sock-detecting stuff, just because we have trouble dealing with the way he says it, or the odd kicks in his gallop.
Adding: I've been trying to come up with a kind of real-world parallel to get an idea across. Imagine a string of mountain peaks, with a person standing on each peak. You may not be able to get to where I am, but you can see me from where you are. I can't get to where Pen is, but I can see him from here, and you can't actually see him, but you know that I can. I can't see what he sees from where I am, but I trust that he can see more than I do, from where he is. Does that help? Or, if you have pets, maybe this one might be better: if I watch my dog air-scenting, I can't analyse or identify the scent she's caught on to, because I don't have her sense of smell. But I can see that she's picked up on something which I can't detect.Pesky (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"he sees WP as a doomed project and is quite convinced of this fact, so he has no motivation to genuinely contribute" This is a misconception. I quote a notable Wiki author from village pump:
I have no doubt that eventually Wikipedia will die as a project in the future, but I also think that in the 25th Century (or whenever it becomes an issue) what everybody is working on today will very likely seed such future compendiums of human knowledge just like Wikipedia has been gifted from a great many other sources to make what we have today. That many people are using Wikipedia to spread human knowledge should be viewed as a good thing. Failure to attribute and plagiarism in violation of the terms of the Wikipedia licenses is bad form, but conforming to Wikipedia licenses are pretty easy to do (since you don't need formal written permission to copy). --Robert Horning (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, Penyulap seems to have you convinced that he's incredibly smart, but he's not smart enough to edit Wikipedia without getting into trouble. All of that wall of text about SPI culminated in him pointing at his own newest sock - which he was presumably frustrated that we hadn't found yet. By and large, troublemaking socks are stupid and give themselves away (even if they don't specialise in creating obscene versions of usernames or similar) - and by and large if a blocked/banned editor sneaks back into a different area and edits without trouble, the community isn't mad keen on flushing them out. If Penyulap has this syndrome that gives him a very effective memory in some areas, he may be a bit better at spotting socks than I am - who can often 'feel' a familiarity without being able to pin it down - and that might be of some value to the project. But it's not so valuable that he can be disruptive or create socks himself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Added - I read this and thought this sounds like I'm saying Penyulap creates obscene versions of usernames. What I was trying to gargle was nothing related to Peny, it was that socks in general that are troublesome get spotted quick - even if they don't do things like create obscene usernames or obsessively modify articles on Disney films.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) [reply]
Pen's intelligence isn't at issue here. I have not seen any evidence presented that allowing Pen talk page access has caused disruption, only misreading of what Pen has written to the extent of reversing its meaning (this is pretty standard fare for Wiki-Drama of course). I would agree that Pen might be better served by sticking to easy words joined in simple sentences, with no more than one obvious meaning, and as few cultural references as possible, in some circumstances. However the writing is not that obscure, and I think talk page access should not pose a problem except in extreme circumstances (legal threats, copyvios, libel, technical abuse etc.). RichFarmbrough, 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
@Dennis: I'm shocked and appalled that he would write you such an awful email; that's really bad. @Elen – Don;t worry! I didn't misread your post (my brain is probably on the same level of scrambled encryptions as yours, or something, lol!) And I know exactly what you mean about that 'feel' thing; I get it with copyvios. @Rich; I'm inclined to agree with you that allowing him talk page access isn't likely to lead to disruption; after all, nobody needs to go and read it if they don't want to. Where is the line between alternate accounts and socks, precisely? It always looks like a grey area, to me, but then sorting out the sock drawer isn't a particular interest of mine. Was Pen's latest creation actually doing anything disruptive? I do understand all your points, and I really do wish I had a magic wand (though, if I had, the first thing I'd do with it is wave it over the little grandchild, and the next would possibly be to influence the outcome of next week's lottery ... lol!) I wish Pen were more able to get points across in brief, and succinctly, and with superabundant clarity, and without the levels of wossname (can't think of the words, so you have a nice metasyntactic variable there instead ;P ), but it seems that maybe he just can't do that, which is a shame. But he certainly can decide not to get into the name-calling stuff and "having a pop" at people. Frustration may be a big part of it (and health issues), but yes, he really needs to make wiser choices in that area. Hopefully he will use the brain to work out ways of working with people constructively to deal with the socks he's looking at. He needs to lean how to teach and explain in really simple terms – as if he were explaining to a much-loved six-year-old. He has a lot to offer, but I'm in complete agreement that he has to learn how to do it best. But, to get off the waffly rambling and back to the main point, I don't think that allowing him access to his talk page will cause any major problems in and of itself. Some people will certainly get bored reading it; some will feel irritated (but they can unwatch and walk away); but provided he stays within policy on his talk, there's no great problem, I don't think. Pesky (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here but I warned Dennis about Pen months ago - his acting out at one of the ppl who were helping him and bending over backwards for him is precisely the kind of behaviour that this project does not need. *If* this is a guy who has RL problems I have every sympathy for him but we and WP can't help him. If he can't play by the rules here we have no reason to spend further time on him. He lied about having more sockpuppets, and while there are multiple lines between legitimate sock accounts and illegitimates ones, lying is one of the brightlines. Furthermore he was going on about breaching experiments before being indef'd - that's what he's doing now (and had previously been doing). Wikipedia (what ever Pen's view of it) is an encylcopedia not a space for performance art, or a social network. IMHO his actions amount to griefing and at this point it is time to treat the issue "with extinction" until he gets the message, then the standard offer applies. His talk page *not* being a forum/social network/blog etc is one of those things Pen needs to adjust to, and frankly the simplest one--Caililtalk09:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Pesky, if you're blocked, you're blocked. It is you the person who is not to edit, not the particular account. So a blocked editor creating socks while still discussing their block is always going to get the hammer dropped on them. Particularly as - as Cailil says - these socks appear to be breaching experiments, which will get you blocked anyway. I'm sorry but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a social networking project. If you guys want to chat to Penyulap, you'll need to find another venue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary WP is concurrently an encyclopedia and a social networking project (or MMORPG, if you like that model better). Otherwise, there'd be no justification for the exchange above between yourself and RF above, right? Nobody Ent22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A certain amount of social exchange is good for the project - it's way better to be able to think of your fellow editors as humans, not 'POV pushing Bolivians' or whatever, and knowing a bit about them helps. It helps us all rub along. The important thing has to be that the social exchange doesn't dominate, and the editor is clearly also here to help the project along. If all Penyulap was doing was modeling Wikipedia on his talkpage, I wouldn't have an issue with it. However, creating socks in what appear to be breaching experiments and sending abusive emails to people (which he is continuing to do and which is why I've removed his email privileges, although it is unlikely to stop it) do not contribute to the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how Pen can contribute to the project while you block him. There is nothing on his talk page that is objectionable, at least not posted by him. I have seen no evidence of abusive socking, and Pen has made an offer to not create socks, which you said would be sufficient to unblock talk page access at least. Please, therefore, unblock Pen's talk page access as you have said you would. RichFarmbrough, 12:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, User talk:SinghIsKing123 has ignored your final warning, given yesterday. Please block this disruptive user. Thanks
Thanks for the block. It sees that SinghIsKing123 has just created the sock User:MonicaCool07 who is still reverting without discussion. It seems this could go on for ever. Is there a way to check if the second account is a sock? Thanks Span (talk)11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've rarely seen a sockier sock outside of a sock shop. Monica is indefblocked and I've extended Singh's. I fear we will get more socks though, so have semi-protected the article for a week. Please extend my apologies to any legit new accounts or IPs who want to edit.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks very much. It's a low edit traffic article apart from spam. This editor seems to be digging their heels in so I would expect them to pop up again, but will keep my eye on it. Thanks for your help. Span (talk)14:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, now that the short term protection has expired another sock has turned up. Could you extend the protection on Jalandhar? No discussion will be entered into on the talk page. Thanks Span (talk)10:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much - so very helpful. I realise I don't know much about how sock tracking works. Is it possible to geolocate registered accounts? I am sure this user has many socks but works through registered accounts so I can't tell without submitting info to the sock board. Can I prove that PrabhChatha is a sock of SinghIsKing123? He seems very active all over and very determined. Any advice would be welcome. All best wishes Span (talk)21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... could you take a look at this: [15]. I'm not sure what User:Zgoutreach is up to here, but if it is intended as an article, I think he/she is likely to be sorely disappointed per multiple policies, and if it isn't intended as an article, it doesn't belong there. I've had a bit of interaction with Zgoutreach at The Zeitgeist Movement (the name seems coincidence, rather than COI - see User talk:Zgoutreach), so perhaps it might be better for me not to get involved and someone with a little more tact (i.e. almost anyone, but you seem a prime example) may be more effective. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly a copyvio - there was nothing in it but chunks of text from the books. I've offered him some advice, I'm not convinced he could create an article that would be kept - my guess is an AfD would just redirect it back to the main article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, I'm sorry that this is occuring on your talk page, however it appears AndyTheGrump is not acting in the best of wikipedia's interests. Although I always like to assume good faith, please check out the following Vandalism by AndyTheGrump here: [16]. (Andy deletes the entire article, and replaces it with a paragraph that includes: "The Zeitgeist Movement is a deranged utopian cult" and "its membership consists of more than two men and a dog." and also "Sadly, they once persuaded someone to write a blog in the Huffington post which repeated their bullshit" as you can see). This incident occured about a month before I started editing the article, and I soon discovered it after I began wondering why all my, and other editors edits all quickly got reversed, with no explanation or invalid explanation (for example, when I added 1 external link to that section, it was immediately deleted; the comment was used by AndyTheGrump on August 25th, 2012: "that is NOT an external link", when it clearly is an external link, since it is pointing users Outside of wikipedia.). I told Andy "Please note that your past experiences of vandalism, edit-warring/improper reverting, and admitted aggrivation from editors will not got unnoticed." however he is still a major "editor" of "The Zeitgeist Movement" page, and has confronted me on my talk page for bias, and I stood up for the inclusion of reliable sources about the article.
I can't help but notice, but it appears Andy has continued the attacks against me beyond that article to now include my "Draft" article. Although I have no reason whatsoever to suspect your motivations, Elen, I do believe Andy has a bias towards me, and is attempting to influence others, namely yourself, to prematurely judge my non-submitted draft.
In my week-old draft articles defence, if it wasn't up to wikipedia's policy's before, I would make it so before submission. Details about my plans for the article are on my talk page, I just wanted to inform you about AndyTheGrumps potential ulterior motives as to why he is pointing this out to you.
I am new here on wikipedia, and look to experienced editors to set the example. Sorry, once again, that this is on your user page, and I apologize if I have overstepped by bounds. We can discuss the deleted draft on my page if you wish, and please be aware of past vandals and potential trolls such as AndyTheGrump. If a user has deliberately vandalized with profanities the way he has so recently ([17]), it's hard to assume good faith right away. Thank you for your time, Zgoutreach (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zgoutreach. As I said on your talkpage, I have no opinion on the merits of this as a topic - ie whether you can create an article that meets our notability standards. My only concern is the amount of non-free material you had put into the draft. If you can rewrite the article without it consisting mostly of quotes, and without it coming across as you writing a dissertation on the content of the book, go for it. Andy is probably going to nominate it for deletion anyway, and argue that it should be merged back into the main article, but we have processes for managing that discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it keeps Zgoutreach from jumping straight into conspiracy-mode, I'll promise not to nominate it - or do anything with it. I only brought it up in the first place because it seemed a shame for anyone to put a lot of work into something that really doesn't stand any chance of becoming an article - I'd not thought about the copyvio aspect. I'm sure that others will look at it anyway if it ever gets moved into article space. And Zgoutreach, at least try to be consistent - one minute you are all chummy, and the next you're accusing me of plotting against you - that really isn't the best way to deal with people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, if you'll discussing a concern about my draft, a heads up would be appreciated next time. Also, as far as accusations, I'm willing to overlook you accusation that I'm a part of the irrelgious Zeitgeist Movement, and therefore a biased editor. (If anything your deliberate vandalism shows who is the biasedly editor.) I would love to become "chums" once again, but your actions in the past haven't supported that. Here's to a prosperous tomorrow! :) Zgoutreach (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no wish whatsoever to become 'chums' with you. I have no wish to have any further contact with you - and provided you refrain from inappropriately promoting the 'irrelgious Zeitgeist Movement' again, I almost certainly won't. Now will you please get it into your tiny little head that the only reason I raised the your draft article with Elen was because it looked like you were wasting your time, and it seemed sensible to get an outside opinion from her on whether I was right, and for her to contact you if I was. I didn't expect her to delete it, though I can fully concur with her reasons for doing so. Maybe you should spend a little more time researching Wikipedia policy before posting large volumes of material - you seem to have a knack of getting it wrong, as multiple contributors have indicated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If either of you can persuade Penyulap to stop creating sock accounts while blocked, they can have their talkpage access back to expound further on these fascinating topics."
I replied some considerable time ago saying that Penyulap has already more or less agreed to this. For clarity I quote
“
I would be happy to comply with any reasonable request. Am I being
asked not to create alternative accounts on commons and other
wikipedias, and would you prefer I shut down the alternative accounts
that I am now using on Japanese, Russian and German wikipedias as well
?
”
Of course one might assume that the references to other wikis are tongue in cheek, but regardless the correct answer is "Other wikis will have their own procedures, and I leave it to them".
So can you please, as you promised, give Penyulap talk page access back.
[Pesky butting in again ... please don't growl, I'm feeling fragile] On a general matter of principle, I feel it's very important not to move goalposts at all. If we say to someone: "You do A, and I'll let you do B", then we need to fulfil our side of the deal. Part of offering a deal is the obligation to follow through with it; I've made deals I've regretted in the past, and had to follow through at some cost to myself. I've become much more careful about what deals I offer, more recently. Pesky (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, I am sure you recall User:Godmadeit whom you blocked 21:48, 20 February 2012 for continuously replacing "same-sex" with "homosexual" in Census data of small Northern California towns. Well... Son of Godmadeit has arrived... User:Godmadeit101 just made the same type of dogmatic changes to Colusa, California and I reverted their changes. Thanking you again for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 00:13, 3 September 2012 (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.
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Hi Elen, Somerled the Viking Slayer is not a POV fork. It relates to a different person. 'Somerled' apparently refers to a Viking ancestor and does not refer to Somerled the Viking Slayer. Somerled the Viking Slayer is a historical Pictic leader with an extensive recorded lineage. Thank you for your contribution.
Just in case you took her page off your watchlist, about 1 month after her 1 year block expired, User:Neptunekh2 is back to editing (if you've forgotten, see [18] and [19]). And already making very specific, and some might argue overly specific, categories. Right now it's just barely w/in reason, but I see that some of her edits have already been reverted. Sigh--she so clearly wants to be here, and clearly wants to help in her own way. I wish there was some way to channel that energy and desire productively. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to think that there was a policy or guideline on privacy of non-notable individuals on Wikipedia articles, but I can't seem to locate it. Do you happen to know where it is, or if ti's just my imagination? MSJapan (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its part of WP:BLP - WP:BLPNAMEConsider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction: the MHP was originally presented in a pair of letters to the American Statistician. It didn't turn up in Parade magazine until 15 years later, by which time it was already a fairly standard example used in intro probability courses of counterintuitive conditional probability. The notion that it was "originally" a parlor teaser and later hijacked by math types is completely inverted. It was originated by math types and later hijacked as a parlor teaser by vos Savant. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the admin involved, nor do I frequent the articles, but your comment below, struck a chord with me:
"Its the sort of problem that you'd deal with in the workplace by pulling the guy out for some retraining".
I agree that it wouldn't end in sacking or demoting.
But more accurately, I'd characterise it as follows:
"Its the sort of problem that you'd deal with in the workplace by getting the manager to tick him off".
The best parallel we have is Arbcom admonishing/warning the user. What's to be lost in trying that? If he truly doesn't get it, you can desysop in a couple of weeks when he steps over the line again. If he does get it, you retain a motivated, productive admin, who's had a wake-up call. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're entirely right. I think if he hadn't reacted the way he did, that's the worst he would have got. But the fact that he's not talking here while editing on other projects is rather telling against him I fear. Gives the impression somewhat that he wouldn't take any notice.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think the way some people have reacted on his talkpage has helped. Telling him he's done nothing wrong, it's all down to beastly bullies and incompetent arbs really won't have encouraged him to treat this problem in an adult way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He can't help what other people post on his talk page. If he showed himself willing to listen now, do you think it'd make a difference? I hate losing good people. --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, he can't - that wasn't aimed at him. NYB is still prepared to wait - if he came back with some good dialogue, explained his understanding, examined the concerns raised by the community, said he was prepared to make changes to allay the community concern, I probably wouldn't vote for a desysop. It's a handful of instances and he's clearly trying to act in the best interests of the project, even if he's missed the mark a bit. But given the way people are presenting that as 'having to confess his sins', 'having to grovel' etc, I don't think he will.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have the unhappy situation on Wikipedia of expecting people to all behave the same way in circumstances that are difficult for them. It's a handful of instances and he's clearly trying to act in the best interests of the project, even if he's missed the mark a bit. This hardly seems like desysop worthy behaviour but rather an admin who has misunderstood and needs a bit of direction. Why does an admin who has done his best even if he's off the mark have to grovel. What he has to do is adjust and that is an action he can carry out, which may not need the words saying he'll do so. Is it possible he can be placed on probation pending his further actions with out having to lose face. Some people can deal with arbitration and the accusations, others can't. Its not a nice place to be, and not everybody deals with that kind of stress in the same way. This is a big project with many kinds of people. Can we look at the initial behaviour, and judge that rather than expecting the editor to behave in the accepted manner at arbitration when maybe he can't or feel sit would be wrong for him to do so. This doesn't mean he won't adjust his behaviour so that it falls in line with the community standard. I like what Dweller has to say above and would suggest his approach be tried. If it doesn't work then an automatic desysop would be be applied. Just a thought on this matter, and an apology if this is an intrusion.(olive (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with the sentiments here and have already stated as such in other venues but will summarize here also. The EP situation is unfortunate, the problem has already been discussed, addressed and the parties have all moved on to other things. There is no need for Arbcom to continue pursuing this case. The fact that the Arbs continue too, for me, is more of a problem and more a cause of concern, than the EP situation ever was. Kumioko (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the arbs have to deal with the case, as it is, and thankfully they do take time to deliberate carefully, in my experience. I don't see a problem with that. I do believe that we can get used to viewing anything only from one side while expecting certain kinds of behaviour from that view. In reality people are multidimensional and on a big project like this the difficult task is to view each as an individual and not assume that certain behaviours are all motivated from the same place. Anyway just some thoughts on this.(olive (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, I agree. His behaviour looks almost childish (I'll take me bat 'ome), but may be motivated by entirely different factors. The trouble is, how do we know what he's thinking if he says nothing. All we have to go on is the one statement he made, probably when he was angry and upset, but if he never says anything further, then what do you do. The community generally is of the opinion that it's impossible to ever get anything done about 'rogue admins', and there would be very strong criticism if this was just allowed to slide, but the second there is even an enquiry about an admin's behaviour (and bear in mind that the case was brought by a bunch of 'fellow admins') then another section starts up about Arb brutality. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Arbs are too sporadic on when they enforce the rule. This time they took the case and in several others over the last few months they declined without even saying why. Just no. So I think the problem isn't just this case but in the general perception that the Arbs are singling this user out and letting others slide because of past relationships. As I said personally I think the problem has washed out and there is no reason for the arbs to act other than the scolding the user already got. IF they step out of line again then maybe they can act. Kumioko (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your evidence for this - other than just "well Kumioko says so". Can I say again, as you seem to be having trouble taking it in, RAUL BACKED DOWN. He did it with bad grace, but he did back down in the face of community pressure BEFORE it got to RfAR. And the time before that, you were crying over desysoping Kwami, and the time before that you were crying over desysoping Rich Farmbrough, so no it doesn't look to me anything like sporadic enforcement of rules, it looks like you grovelling around for any stick you think you can use to beat Arbcom. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented my evidence multiple times in multiple venues. But the fact is that Arbcom has a lot of power, more than they should IMO and the too frequently wield it in sporadic ways that seem to many of us to defy any sort of logic. Aside from that and other problems I have already discussed elsewhere and above my problem is that once Arbcom accepts a case the result is essentially Wikideath. The discussions and dialogue that happens on the talk page of the case amounts to a waste of time when virtually everyone knows that once Arbcom has selected a case, they already have the opinion the editor is guilty so everything from that point on is merely for show and the editor will either be desysopped, blocked for some duration or a combination of the too. There is no judicial process too it aside from the legalesque scales they use as a symbol and some basic legal terminology. These actions are widely known, they are having a strongly negative effect on editors and admins performing actions. Admins are afraid to do certain things because if they ruffle too many feathers they go to Arbcom and their fate is sealed. I know that my comments upset some members of Arbcom and I know that Arbcom has done some good things, but IMO Arbcom as an entity has devolved from a once respected entity within the community to the symbol of Judge, Jury and executioner. You all got mad when EP didn't return comment but look at it from his point of view and from the Arbcom's history, why would he? What purpose would it serve? When virtually every admin or editor that has come before the group has suffered the same fate without exception, there is no reason to think he would be any different so there's no reason to waste valuable time. Its better just to move on. Arbcom doesn't like the fact that he didn't comment but frankly you brought it on yourselves with your history of treatment of the cases that were submitted to you. Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sure don't see any arb brutality , and apologize if I gave that impression. I guess I don't see that there is only one solution, and that, the most severe when we have an editor with this kind of contribution record and who's admin mis actions are a handful. I wonder about AGF and a probation period with even one strike after that and he's out (desysop), no questions asked. If he can't or won't comment I'd also assume good faith and say fine with a comment and explanation maybe this could pass, but with out, a probation period and a falling ax for the same mistake. I'm no arb of course who has to actually deal with the problem rather than talk about it so its easy for me to sit here and cough up solutions. Thanks for your response and hearing me out.(olive (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Wasn't aimed at you Olive. You're being very thoughtful. The problem is, if someone has -apparently- refused to recognise the issue or the attempt to deal with it, why would one have confidence that they will take any notice of a warning. And given that it is part of WP:ADMIN (and numerous Arbcom decisions) that Admins are expected to engage and make a reasonable response when challenged over an action (and not take their bat home), acting in that way then starts to raise a wider question about suitability as an admin. The reverse argument I suppose is that this approach could leave silk-tongued rogues getting away with murder. It's a judgement call in the end. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you....I wanted to make the points in case they hadn't been considered , and hope that isn't arrogant. And yes, a judgement call. So one has to trust the arbs have been chosen because they are thinking deeply and are not being taken in by the silk tongued rogues. Still we're all human, too. Thanks you're doing a great job.(olive (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I've been offwiki (usually am, Sat-Mon) but if you think there's a point in doing so, I'd be happy to try having a chat with him. Lmk. --Dweller (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"you were crying over desysoping Kwami, and the time before that you were crying over desysoping Rich Farmbrough, " Elen - that is an incredibly childish way to describe Kumioko's legitimate concerns. In fact I have told children off for using that sort of language. RichFarmbrough, 16:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support - I saw a comment you made (in part) "can you get six admins to support you". I would support the concept that Raul has been abusive to Br'er Rabbit (and other account names, but same person), and that he did abuse administrative tools. I also strongly feel that Raul abused the community trust by his refusal to respond to the direct request for a statement at the TFA RFAR request. I have no idea how to file a case, and it's something I hope I never have to learn - but I do indeed support Br'er in this particular scope of admin. abuses towards an editor. — Ched : ? 22:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! For both of you, what I was thinking is this. In the case of Raul, a lot of admins jumped on his head initially, but when he finally reverted, they viewed the matter as over. So when it came to the Arbcom case, there wasn't the support at the time from parties who didn't have a stated interest in who ran the FAR process. That's where it definitely does make a difference who brings the case - I'm not disputing Br'er Rabbit's perception here. If you look at EncycloPetey, half a dozen admins who didn't know the chap from Adam and had never heard of him prior to the ANI report, all lined up behind Future Perfect. Floquenbeam, normally the mildest of men, had already started assembling his own filing when FPaS filed. If you wanted to bring a case about Raul as an admin, you need to get a degree of separation from disputes with Raul as the boss of FA in the evidence. Hence the six pallbearers admins - you don't need six admins (although I don't know how many bona fide girls from the whorehouse there are on Wikipedia), but you do need some clear voices who are only looking at the use of tools, because Arbcom isn't going to take a case about who runs FA. At least not at the moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK - Thank you for the feedback Elen. Not sure how to take the "LOL" (I really wasn't going for laughs). I think I understand what you're saying though. Now, about the "reputation" thing ... ummmm ... naaaaa ... never-mind. I probably don't want to know. :) — Ched : ? 19:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the mere support of a handful of voices, admins or otherwise, does not justify punitive action. If it did,we would not need Arbcom. RichFarmbrough, 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I do sympathise, and I hope you saw my comment on EncycloPetey's page suggesting a way forward, wholly in line with what you suggest. My concern is not over the case in question but the somewhat worrying idea that Arbcom should be influenced in its procedures on a given case by a group of editors voicing similar concerns (however respected and well meaning, and even correct on some level they may be). This makes Arbcom the puppet of the very mob mentality they are designed to defuse. RichFarmbrough, 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jean-no and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em. They are connected to a recent ANI thread. I see that this year ArbCom is more often stepping into such cases where parties involved in external conflicts carry it on Wikipedia, even without a formal request for a case. Maybe the participants who refused to confirm or deny their connections to the matter on-wiki will do so by email with you guys. Also, I think that some statements on ANI deserve some scrutiny vis-a-vis of WP:BLP as well, as they go beyond even what was published in the blogosphere. Finally, perhaps you could point me to ArbCom's current most recent ruling on how accounts hard to distinguish one from another should be evaluated in disputes; wikieons ago, ArbCom issued this. (I didn't know that "account" was an uncountable noun, although perhaps in that case it was so.) Tijfo098 (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious. Are you suggesting that there is a 'cosmetics cabal' amongst our Lords (and Ladies) Protectors? Or do they convene for weekly cabal conferences in Rõuge, Estonia? [20]AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked for 3 months this time. Let me know if he appears in another incarnation. As he's a banned editor, you are free to revert his edit if you wish. It doesn't seem a productive copntribution --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Elen of the Roads, just wanted to let you know I've replied over at Silverseren's Talk page. Would love to get your feedback on updated LMC and Gurwitch drafts. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have never heard of AGF. Perhaps you would like to read it before commenting on my motives and saying that I "deliberately" did something! That was not the case and that was not an edit war!Camelbinky (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out your absolute lie as well- you state that I logged out, that is incorrect. If you look at the history you will see I was an IP for the first revert, and then later when I was logged in because I used my watchlist then I was logged in for the second revert. That is an absolute opposite of what you present as "facts". That's the kind of bullshit that goes on at AN/I to smear people.Camelbinky (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors I respect (SandyGeorgia) are decidedly not fans of infoboxes. I don't go that far, as I find them useful, but I agree they can be abused. For example, a nuanced discussion of some issue might be perfectly appropriate in the main text, yet cannot be adequately summarized into a single word.
I have an item on my To-do list to see if the community would be willing to debate the use of infoboxes, and consider whether non-objective entries should be allowed. The addition to the list was prompted by some heated discussions involving names of influences of economists.
Religion presents a different challenge, as it is inarguable in many cases. However, the case of Galloway aptly identifies a situation where the proper treatment is a NPOV paragraph, but such a paragraph is unlikely to result in a single word, so best to leave it blank in the infobox.
I'm flattered (I think) that you would quote me. My view is that infoboxes should only summarise undisputed facts that are referenced somewhere else in the artice - I don't approve of references in infoboxes. Dates and location of birth and death, geographical loction of the object, date and place of first publication, author and first performance, stuff like that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment with some truth is that the person currently using the Mo Ainm account did have a previous account, and I know what it was. The previous account was not blocked or banned when it stopped editing, and it's last block was a year previous to that. I also once oversighted an attempt by the banned editor to out Mo Ainm, which appears to be the source of the massive diatribes about me. With regard to the banned editor, your name and his appear here - I don't quite know why you're filed there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Domer48!!!! He was part of that informal gathering of users that had me blocked originally, along with O_Fenian, Bjmullan, NorthernCounties and Mo. Not surprised Domer is now under troubles sanctions so I doubt Ill come across him again. It does seem to be a habit of when a user disagrees with your own POV, get him blocked. I think thats why Mo tried to have me blocked straight out of the blocks. Factocop (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mo has since retired, but will no doubt appear in another form. Both Micknamee and SonofSetanta seem to think that Mo held an account with a long list of infringements. Why were these infringements ignored?Factocop (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong! It's not an account with a long list of infringements, it was an account in good standing at the time it was retired. I recommend letting the matter drop at this point - you were unblocked on the understanding that you wouldn't return to problematic editing, and getting into fights over the former identities of editors falls into that category. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Br'er Rabbi has taught your kitten to bite you shrewdly on the ass. Hopefully that has made your day better. Kittens are cute and have very sharp teeth! Spread the goodness of kittens by giving someone else a bitey kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Comment: Did little Elen actually code, and then her name accidentally became hewn in stone? Then would not deserve biting. But it would be a disappointing lack of naughtiness! I thought Elen had learned a little evil from best teacher of it! darwinbishBITE20:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Little Elen make fuckup (technical term), forgot subst:REVISIONUSER would keep bloody changing. not just change once when edit added. No wonder WMF wouldn't employ her. Excellent Wabbit, fix Elen fuckup. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking of you because I saw an appeal that may get sent up to BASC. I'm preparing a cup of tea with some headache medicine in case you need it. I don't know how you keep your sanity with all the stuff that appears on your talk page. Pine✉05:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think neither is probably closer to my view than anything else. I almost think the discussion has reached an answer about how to set the article out - which is the only legitimate discussion in town, as 'what's the correct answer' argued from first principles is not what Wikipedia is for. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, This comment is a gross exaggeration and nearly ad hominem attack. I have never argued for a 4 paragraph exposition of the problem or that a "correct" solution needs three screens of math to set out the answer. If it was up to me, the "Solution" section would look pretty much like User:Rick Block/MH solution. The entire text fits on one screen. The figures make it slop over to two screens, but I think the "extra" space is worthwhile. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rick, the "three screens of maths" was intended as hyperbole ("elephants the size of cruise ships") not an ad hominem attack. I do apologise if it came across as an attack, it was never meant that way.
The problem I have is that, despite having two maths O levels and a maths A level, certificates in statistics and book-keeping (and an honorary pass in a nursing module on calculating drug doses), your solution has never made any sense to me - particularly the set of drawings with 'this hasn't happened' appended to them. The conditional probability tree that appears to show that you win equally whether you stay or switch doesn't help either.
This has convinced me that it is no good trying to present your argument to probably a full 3/4ths of readers. All it will do is convince them that the whole thing is a lie by mathematicians trying to make them look stupid.
Vos Savant's answer is not wrong - once you allow for her missing a vital bit of the puzzle setup, the answer is absolutely correct. It is better to switch, because you will win 2 times out of 3 by switching, but only 1 time out of 3 if you dont. Yours is just a more complicated way of getting to the same answer - so complicated that most people won't understand it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to pick a fight with you, but to some extent whether you understand the conditional solution (which is not mine, but the solution presented by countless sources from the field of probability) is not the issue. Did you read the version I linked? I am in no way insisting (and never have) that this be the wording - if someone can word it in a way that makes it more accessible that would be great - but without some kind of conditional solution presented on a par with "simple" solutions (in the same section - not literally many screenfuls of text later) IMO the article won't represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (which I assume you agree it must, per WP:NPOV). Put aside your understanding for a moment. If this were an article about anything else wouldn't the resolution here be obvious, i.e. include both what the popular and academic sources have to say? Doesn't fundamental Wikipedia policy insist that this must be the solution? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, you misunderstand me. It obviously must go in the article. It is perfectly acceptable at some point in the article to say "Foo, Bar and Woof have all stated that the original solution is wrong, and have published these more detailed solutions." My issue is with the insistence of some folks that the original explanation actually IS wrong. This view is - if not a WP:FRINGE view (since these are not fruitloops arguing that the aliens did it, fringe seems a little strong) - at the very least a recherche view, and so while it should be there somewhere, it would be giving it too much WP:WEIGHT to intrude it everywhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, lets go back to the talkpage, where I do believe it is possible to hash out both a simple and a detailed explanation in one section, provided the 'wrong' word isn't mentioned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My recent change on the "straight inc. article was removed by you. It was removed on grounds of lack of source material, I specifically choose not to include a source because the majority of sources for information on that article involve horrific recounts of mental, physical, and emotional abuse of minors by the rehabilitation facility in question, as such I did not feel it appropriate to subject others to such articles through Wikipedia. However if it is necessary to provide examples I will, please see for examples of my edit and why it is justified, should you see fit please restore the edit:
http://www.survivingstraightincthemovie.com/http://survivingstraightinc.com/cincinnatioh_survivor_stories
With respect -Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xDpvsLIKF0— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.90.183 (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If accounts from hundreds of children and teens isn't enough I honestly do not know what would be, but you are the editor and You have the decision so I will not argue, I wish you a good rest of the morning, noon, or night depending on your time zone.
- Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.90.183 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Why is this so hard. You absolutely must WP:CITE some kind of published source if you want to include this information. Clouds of witness might be OK for Saint Paul, but Wikipedia wants to know where you got the information from. It's a simple request. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your comment on Hasteur's talk page on DID and Tylas, but I don't think you saw it. You said you were going to read up on DID. Tylas withdrew from the DR on DID, saying that she wasn't going to edit the article any more and so the DR was closed with the finding that WP:MEDRS will henceforth be followed. Now that Tylas has announced that she is planning to return to editing DID. I'd like to present to you what I see as the problem.
I believe the lack of research into DID is due to the lack of any testable models (the inability to operationalize DID), the lack of reliable and valid assessment measures of DID, the lack of any agreement over the definition of crucial concepts like personality etc. How can even epidemiology be addressed if there is no reliability or validity in diagnosing?
I think there's not enough mainstream clinical interest to encourage research because most clinicians find other diagnoses that fit the symptoms presented by the patient. Clinicians become disinterested when there are no agreed upon definitions, as evidenced by the terminology in DSM-IVTR.
Yes, I did miss it. The lady seemed to have gone, and the urgency had therefore diminished. The decision to apply WP:MEDRS seemed a valid one. Do I recall correctly that DID became somewhat mired in the False Memory Syndrome furore. I would have thought claiming that DID was always a result of child abuse and nothing else would make practitioners very reluctant to diagnose it in cases where child abuse had not already been identified, and I would also have thought that this somewhat hampered research also. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It says that in the article, but the source for that is an 2008 article.[22] Diagnosis of having been abused as a child is made on the self-report of the patient. It is recommended that the abuse be verified by interviews with family members and others. Some of the literature says that it doesn't matter if the memories are inaccurate or false. New trends in research seem to be looking for a defect in brain structure or functioning for reasons why some people don't have a consistent sense of self. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole topic is quite fascinating for a host of reasons, and the massive "bubble" of DID suggests that it at least can be produced or mimicked to a certain extent - similar to Charcot's hysterics in the late 19th century. That doesn't mean that there are not "true" DID patients or that similar mechanisms actually underlie both. The FMSF, satanic ritual abuse furore and the startling and dramatic nature of accusations that were the foundations of both certainly didn't add any clarity to the situation.
I would suggest we simply document both sides, along with the criticisms and counter-criticisms, and rather coming to a conclusion supporting one or the other, leave the page in a state analagous to throwing up our hands and walking away. From what I've read, the cause simply is not known for certain, though both sides claim certainty. There are a lot of logically and empirically sound criticisms of the traumagenic hypothesis, while still being a large body of clinical research to support it and a large amount of questions concerning the sociocognitive model. While child abuse is strongly associated with DID, I must point out that a consistent criticism of the traumagenic hypothesis is that the abuse is often not objectively corroborated. In fact, one of the articles I read a while back (don't remember which one) stated that the act of confirming abuse is irrelevant to the therapeutic process and in fact can be harmful because it is an expression of doubt. Attempts to confirm abuse have not brought any clarity to the issue (and again, confirming abuse would support abuse as at least one cause of DID, not necessarily the only cause). Guy Boysen wrote a recent review article on childhood DID (and should be publishing an equivalent volume on adults within the year) that discusses the issues of childhood DID and underscored the importance of children with DID in determining the etiology of the diagnosis. Again, the conclusion of the article is that there is not enough empirical evidence to confirm either one. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex14:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...leave the page in a state analagous to throwing up our hands and walking away. Perhaps not as bad as that. If we document all the mainstream positions that should be enough. Wikipedia isn't a medical journal - or a doctor. It doesn't have to come to a diagnosis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I jest, my core point being that we should avoid what Tylas was attempting to do - portray one position as the correct expert consensus and the other as a big mistake everyone should ignore. I genuinely don't believe one position is so overwhelmingly accepted that it is undue weight to write about the other, and I think the best way to do it is to saturate the page with all MEDRS claims and counter-claims. Which really, is how every page should be written. For me the hands-and-walk just means a complete and utter refusal to endorse one or the other in any way - just represent them according to the number and quality of sources for each side. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16912 Rhiannon has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Life is too short for me to spend the remainder of my afternoon dealing with the arcana of a "Categories for discussion" nomination, but I had to share this with someone, and I imagine that your page is well-watched by those who will appreciate it. I just saw this: Category:Fictional characters with superhuman strength.
Thanks for cleaning up User talk:NinaGreen. I just noticed that a barnstar was added to the user page, but it looks a bit odd with the ugly tag on User:NinaGreen. I would remove it myself but I don't know the protocol and don't want to stir up any issues when what's required is a drama-free return. Assuming it's appropriate, would you mind removing the tag? Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(b) Bishonen emailed me about this, but for technical reasons I didn't get to see it
(c) You're the one who protected the talkpage.
(d) I have no opinion one way or the other on protecting the talkpage, and am therefore not going to criticise Bishonen for making the decision that it should be unprotected at this time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to let this drop I think. I didn't protect that talkpage when I removed Penyulap's access because there didn't seem to be any need to, and if I'd seen Bishonen's email (which I didn't due to technical problems) I would probably have unprotected. And if I may say, your response to her email was simply appalling. Not only was it perfectly reasonable to email (given that it was in response to correspondence with Penyulap, and the fact of the correspondence as well as the content might reasonably be considered private), but your reasons for refusing to respond to the enquiry are frankly wretched, and do nothing to enhance a collegial atmosphere on the project. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely feel you are misunderstanding my words. (And in one clear case, misreading them - I specifically said that you were the blocking admin. I never said you were the one who protected the talk page, merely that you removed penyulap's ability to edit the talk page.)
And I never responded to the email. (Though I will say that I considered leaving a note on Bishonen's talk page about it, but hadn't made up my mind about the appropriateness of it.)
"I prefer to not partake in the "backroom dealings" of email or other off-wiki discussion." and "I tend to only communicate through email concerning Wikipedia for things which are private, or in cases where I may have blocked someone and in so doing, blocked their use of their talk page. I realise this tends to leave me out "backroom dealings" of whatever supposed cabals I've heard of," Are these not responses to being emailed by Bishonen. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat: "I never responded to the email". To rephrase: I never emailed in response.
If I were to guess, I think you saw the word "cabal", and just seeing that word prejudiced your reading of my comments, that you are reading them out of context (just as you quoted them out of context, just now). But this is merely a guess on my part.
I haven't done anything in some time. If you're going to get on a horse and drag me somewhere, at least be clear in what you're referencing, and look at the rest of my Talk page, because I'm almost 100% certain other people beat you to it in notifying me of whatever you were talking about. -- Avanu (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert was the wrong word, but you'd rolled the edit back before I could correct it. Your last couple of edits (the ones that got reverted, not your reverts) seemed disruptive, and it seemed to me that any good point you had was being lost - and would be even more lost if one of the AN admins decided to block you. (Added - which it seems they did unfortunately) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate bigots. I hate the people which think mainly about their position, but pretend to defend the Community and the Great Justice. Now, you know who am I and why I participate in flamewars. Only a user who is not worse than me, himself, has the right to say me that I'm bad. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that I started out by trying to help you with some friendly advice, assuming that your primary problem was simply english as a second language, and a russian approach to life. I'm still just trying to help - this course of yours is madness, and you'll just end up blocked the next time this goes back to ANI. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not familiar with NoCal100, and this guy doesn't seem to have the obvious previous tells. Give me a bit more information - you can email me if you prefer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was why. I think my main contribution is focusing on what needs to go into the article. When other parties go off on long discussions about the exactitudes of various approaches and fill the talkpage up, I don't feel I have anything to contribute except getting cross with them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1 week block hasn't changed a thing. See here, where he removes a comment with an edit summary calling the editor "run along you anonymous, no-ethics, propagandizing, game-playing jerk -- go tell teacher" and reiterates here his claim about "propagandists without ethics" controlling the article. That's besides the personal attacks he gave towards you, the blocking admin. --JethroB20:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a provocation, and Bali's attitude has been expressed to other editors there as well, including Elen ([28], [29]), editors he disagrees with in general ([30]), and even more recently told another editor to "run along" and removed their comment ([31]). There's really not much to explain, these personal attacks are the reason he's blocked, and it's been to multiple editors (even outside the topic area, see [32][33], [34]). There isn't any "provocation." There's one editor who makes personal attacks to people who disagrees with, and continues with such even after being blocked. Not every comment requires someone to flip out, and Ankh's was hardly "provocative." --JethroB21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see any reason why Ankhmorpork would go to his talk page to poke him with a stick other than to provoke a reaction. Dlv999 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that sentiment. And I am unworried by him railing at me - I'm not going to extend a block for that. But he does need to stop gobbing off at the world in general. Once he gets going, he just doesn't seem to have any sense that he's not so much overstepped the mark, but cleared it by Bob Beamon levels. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Bob Beamon analogy is more apposite when you consider his adherence to his true-spirited convictions, he was "suspended from the University of Texas at El Paso, for refusing to compete against Brigham Young University, alleging it had racist policies." A bit harsh to portray that benign bon mot as a pernicious provocation but yes, there's always room for more discretion. Ankh.Morpork20:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the NH mess yesterday, this was an interesting point. I'm always up for being picked up on things I've got wrong as a Wikipedian. I'd be pleased if you'd take a look at the diff I OSd and lmk if you'd have handled it differently? --Dweller (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'd probably have done the same as you did. RIRS/Geolocate just says that the parent provider was ATT, the reassigned user was The Answer Group, which is based in Fort Lauderdale. I would have no problem with someone putting that information on Wikipedia - see it all the time in sock investigations. However all the rest came out of NH's head, and is plainly an attempt at outing - even before NH went a bit doo lally and tried ringing the guy's alleged employer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind, thanks, but I'm still uncomfortable - there's a bit to unpack here, so bear with me.
IIRC, when I viewed the diff following an OTRS ticket I didn't know that the information was from WHOIS.
I've not personally run that many WHOIS searches, mostly because the ones I have run have been mostly useless. Perhaps they work a lot better for IPs in the States than British ones.
If all I'd seen was a revelation of a specific town, it wouldn't have occurred to me that this might have come from WHOIS, although it would do now
If all I'd seen was a revelation of a specific town, I think I'd have still used the OS tool, under "Removal of non-public personal information" and I'm not sure whether the policy prohibits that or not, because the wording pulls me in two directions. Is someone's hometown "personal" information? Could be. The examples in the policy include "home address", but this is part of their address... and the examples are clearly not intended to be exhaustive.
So, with that lot unpacked, I wonder if:
We should consider clarifying just how close to a home address is considered "personal" information... Address? definitely. Street? I'd say so. Town? possibly... especially for a small town.
If it's a "yes" to town, should we consider mentioning in the policy that OSers should consider data revealed through WHOIS as "public"?
Subject to that then, in cases where they don't know, do OSers need to check first to see if the material came from WHOIS?
Sorry if that's all a bit tangled. The above would obviously need to be worked through with some consensus, but I'm chatting it through with you as a sounding board first.
Thank you! Elen of the Roads (and talk page stalkers), I have submitted another oversight request based on suppressing data that is clearly additional to the above legitimate IP research, and clearly speculative given the evidence provided. It appears to be of the same category as the approved oversight except for number of revisions. I have not succeeded in hiding this data due to editors that do not have the whole story reinstating it. Can someone please guide me as to whether I should drop the issue or whether the oversight request is legitimate and can be carried out? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the portion of the edit in question again from WP:AN, per WP:OUTING (a bit of a borderline case, but on the wrong side of the border, IMHO). I agree with Elen about the actual oversight, however; I would have used the "toothpaste back in the tube" analogy instead, but removing it from the visible text may be the best you can hope for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP - you were advised by an oversighter that this wasn't outing nor was this oversightable. Since you didn't get it oversighted you basically cried to another sysop who's removed that part of my edit. Don't worry, it's still removed and I will not put it back up, but , just do a whois and you'll get the information I got. It's not outing .
I will also point out you have your username and your ip address up on your page, you IP page shows that this is registered to The Answer Group, and you want to cry Outing ? Dude, it's just not happening. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 17:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
PS: You have a real name now, why are you still using your IP ? KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 17:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, did you study the edit history of that article before making that block? If you had, I think it would have been obvious to you that certain editors are using the article to make Israel-related Arab culture look as stupid as possible. It's the most blatently racist editing that I've seen in awhile. Dan has been calling them out on it, and instead of supporting him, you block him! Wikipedia has a problem with overly-POV editors in the Israel-Palestine topic area. I know WP administrators don't like making block decisions on NPOV grounds, but the administrators who do so, and do so correctly, are the ones who are really helping Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was one more link in a long chain, Dan Murphy was already taken to the administrator's noticeboard for personal attacks in another topic area, and he was told very clearly that no action was taken then, but he'd be blocked if he continued with personal attack. Claiming that there's some secret agenda going on and saying that the only purpose of two editors is to "spread hate" is really over the top and is completely unfounded, and based solely on personal views. Object to content, but that doesn't mean going around attacking editors that all they want to do is "spread hate" and they're "propagandists," especially after the results of an AfD was that the article should in fact be kept. Before the AN, he called an editor an "anonmyous shitheel" and after being blocked, [tells told] an uninvolved editor to "go play in traffic kiddo" (just 2 examples, there are a lot more).
Simply put, there's a level of incivility that just isn't tolerated, and not liking the content or the fact an AfD was closed as keep doesn't change that. It doesn't allow you to reinsert a passage that was already reverted a few days ago, and it doesn't let you make outrageous claims and attacks on editors when it's reverted again (he even claimed I was edit-warring and a master of the trade, when I never even reverted him... That's completely unsubstantiated. Along with allegations that a bunch of editors are coordinating this article behind-the-scenes, and they're all propagandists to spread hate). --JethroB16:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, did you study the edit history of Bali Ultimate before posting here? How this edit is related to calling out certain editors who are using the article to make Israel-related Arab culture look as stupid as possible? I found out about the article from this thread and as absolutely independent reader I'm telling you: "your claim that editing of this article is "blatently racist" is the most ridiculous allegation I've ever seen in a while." 71.198.248.236 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in my experience it's entirely plausible that "a bunch of editors are coordinating this article behind-the-scenes". However, what's also being co-ordinated behind the scenes is an attempt by User:Volunteer Marek, who got ever-so-vocal in this thread that you mention, to canvass for a "friend of a friend" administrator to unblock Bali ultimate ("Dan Murphy") via an external forum site (second post down from the top). Oddly enough, that's the self same forum site that Marek, Bali ultimate and the "friend" all contribute to (the latter more rarely), although Bali ultimate is most emphatic that he and the others on that site, including the "global moderator" there that's threatened to cut WP editors' throats, don't constitute a "gang". Presumably they're barely even aware of each others' existence.
Cla68, how does posting hate speech rants help the situation that you describe. Bali isn't actually achieving anything by his carry on, you do realise that. If what you describe is going on, you need to be a little bit cleverer. I am not sympathetic to misuse of sources to further a POV for instance - providing evidence that this is going on is likely to have considerably more impact that futile railing on talkpages.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maractus is an ED admin (as is Michaeldsuarez who's running a sockpuppet investigation about Dualus on meta) ioand a GNAA associate Meepsheep. He's usually globally blocked on WMF projects on sight. He also owns the domain maract.us under a pseudonym. Cupco has had dozens of previous accounts blocked, including Selery and Nrcprm2026. He doesn't like the GNAA. Meepsheep is happy he's won this battle. Notice his edits 15 minutes apart on enwiki and ED.
I do not know why the above matter was raised, but glancing at my watchlist I noticed a name which made me read the message, and I would like to join in by expressing my frustration with the weak procedures Wikipedia has for defending itself from GNAA advocates. Yes, several have been indeffed, but there is an unending stream of AGF editors who are fascinated with GNAA and who exploit Wikipedia's open community to promote GNAA as if it were a significant or encyclopedic topic. For example, there is often someone wanting to add GNAA lulz at Troll (Internet)—an understandable aim for any GNAA promoter, and there is no good way to resist the pressure to add GNAA stuff to more and more articles. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want either side in this battle editing Wikipedia through socks. There are no good guys here from that perspective. I agree that it can be hard to deal with, but I don't believe it is as impossible as you say. GNAA are more subtle than ninth grade penis vandals, but if they are vandalising then the vandalism remedies apply. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
maractus is a pokemon and an irc network i run with Meepsheep, that's where I got the username (and the domain). I'm not denying that I'm from #GNAA as well, but unlike most GNAA editors I actually wish to contribute to the encyclopedia. Maractustalk15:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, can you explain why your checkuser yielded said sockpuppetry results while the one done at Cupco's SPI did not? It was also stated there that both accounts were unrelated. The best thing to do is assume good faith imo. Maractustalk22:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are LiteralKa (or rather I have no idea if they are LiteralKa, but Alison says that she knows Zaiger isn't LiteralKa, because she knows them both in RL). I do think both accounts belong to the same editor, which wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't that Zaiger was blocked for something else. Blocks apply to the editor not the account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alison specifically stated that there was no evidence linking any of the accounts in question, and thus there is no grounds to block either based on checkuser evidence, which you still have yet to explain. Maractustalk23:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said elsewhere, "my talkpage is infested with socks at the moment". It's not just your talk page, All Wikimedia Foundation projects are infested with "socks". Until there is a fundamental change in how the projects are governed, it will likely stay that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6F00:877:0:0:0:B505:DCE6 (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this [38] is from a user name page that was moved as part of a user name change. I think the page should exist as a redirect or maybe it should be deleted under housekeeping? -- The Red Pen of Doom21:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bad username. The blocked username. The entire bogus "IP_12.153.112.21" user/user talk page hierarchy should be nuked. Or, if you're old enough as Nomad would say: Sterilize! Sterilize!Nobody Ent21:57, 7 October 2012 (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.
He hasn't asked me to. Also I think it would be impossible given the way that page is structured (or at least beyond my technical capabilities with the tool). I do understand the position that if he said it it can't be unsaid, but a user who moves away from a username is entitled not to have attention constantly drawn to it even if it has been in the public space. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP signed this edit as Puppyph. All the edits to these articles from IPs belonging to PLDT Sampaloc with the provider Philippine Long Distance Telephone (you can get this information from the WHOIS or geolocate links in the IP template) apper to be Puppyph(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log). I have blocked Puppyph for socking in order to edit war (he's been warned about edit warring and is plainly logging out to keep going), so if any IP in this category makes an edit in the next few days, you can revert it as a blocked user. It might also encourage him to go back to his talkpage and discuss the matter (but Im not holdng out much hope). I've put in a rangeblock for 48hrs - can't really do it for longer as this is quite a dynamic range, but it might slow him down a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...for talking sense at the loopy business about Malleus. Dunno whether it'll do much good. My workplace is political...in the formal sense of that word, and really, Malleus just doesn't rate as uncivil on real-world scales. Anyway, just thought I'd say. Don't want to see good people like yourself spinning out of here like User:Black Kite, presumably because the turkeys finally get 'em down. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with Malleus isn't just about bad words where he may say something like that's bullshit or what a bunch of crap...he's calling people twats, cunts and assholes...that is simply unacceptable. I would expect to be blocked from editing if I were to do that and no amount of GA's, FA's and other positive contributions gives him the right to not follow our NPA and Civility policies and guidelines. I don't think he has never been a Wikipedian, but I do think that if he has decided the rules don't apply to him, then he no longer wishes to be part of the community....the community where some semblence of common decency and mutual respect is mandatory for its continued well being.--MONGO16:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Examples outside Rfa's...how many examples of threats, intimidation and personal attacks do you want....a small sample from the past 30 days in areas outside Rfa. Multiply this by 6 at least if we examined the last 6 months...
Hi Elen - could you please link me to, or tell me, exactly which accounts Arbcom status are expiring this year, thanks - Youreallycan17:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I do not work with spi, but I have noticed a similarity between the style, nature, and marginal notability of articles worked on by this user and those of this blocked user banned after a rather complicated spi you handled. Perhaps you can follow up for me. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that mess. This editor has been around a long time, and was editing during that SPI. The fact that he was never picked up suggests to me that there wouldn't be an obvious link. One tell might be if he inserts bitcoin references into articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't for one minute think that you were accusing me of bullying,[40] but others might. My view on bullying is very simple, and one that has caused me some problems here on Wikipedia: don't turn the other cheek, don't go pleading to "authority" in the expectation of "justice", just get stuck in and sort it out. Bullies are only allowed to be bullies because nobody has the courage to confront them. At junior school I was the anti-bully if you will. I'd batter anyone I saw picking on some kid, and nobody ever tried to bully me.
Now I come to think of it they did try. I remember one day that Tommy Findlay was pushed by his gang to challenge me to a fight after school (does that kind of thing still happen?). He was a little scrap of a thing, any boxing board of control would have ruled the fight illegal, and luckily he had the good sense to scarper before I arrived, But that's a story best kept for my memoirs. ;-) MalleusFatuorum18:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Malleus. I noticed this comment and wanted to wish you well. Thanks for sharing part of that memory. I know it was not posted for me, but I feel like the beneficiary. If I may benefit further, will you tell me if you are inclined to "holding a grudge"? I ask because I've apparently offended you in the past, though in all honesty it was not my original intention. And I've asked for your assistance, which you understandably declined. At times I am stubborn to turn the other cheek; similar to your regards above, yet I lament the idea that we are helpless to repair our differences. Nevertheless I'd like to apologize for my part in aggravating matters, I truly am sorry! 76StratString da Broke da (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I neglected to address an important reason for posting my regards; to wit: I wish we could repair our differences, and would choose that option; if it were an option? The post was incomplete without an expression of that sentiment. With esteem - 76StratString da Broke da (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus - quite the opposite. If you read Littleolive oil's piece, she's saying that while you definitely cuss, you don't bully people, and she sees that as a positive attribute. I was referencing my RFA, where I said that I thought the biggest unresolved problem was bullying, because that made editors give up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not ask MatthewTownsend if he feels as if has been bullied by Malleus and or his crowd...how about Arthur Rubin...how about well, I can't name the dozen editors that have been emailing me about Malleus...they don't want to get into this drama and the reason...because they don't want to be bullied by Malleus and his crowd. The website must be mad if we're thinking that calling other people arseholes, twats and cunts isn't bullying...pathetic. All the ridiculous wikilawyering and butt patting nonsense, partial arbitrators failing to defend the policies of this website. I'm going back to the land of sanity...one where editors like Antandrus, Acroterion, Mike Cline and WSiegmund play...never heard much about those folks?...maybe because they are some of our best. They ask for no rewards, no special accomodations so they can continue to edit, none need be made...their examples are the ones we should be emulating.--MONGO01:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, what about the bullying that takes place in the 9/11 topic area? It's some of the worst I've ever seen, including comments on talk pages ridiculing other editor's ideas or perceived beliefs or calling on editors to shun other editors. Need any diffs? I'm not saying that you're wrong about the group you're accusing of bullying above, I'm just asking why you haven't been consistent in your pursuit of bullying groups of editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about your on and offsite bullying of SlimVirgin that went on for like 2 years? Pretty easy to pick on a lady I guess. If anything, I'm the one that was bullied for years by POV pushers on 9/11 pages...POV pushers like Seabhcan (desysopped and civility paroled) and ThomasBasboll (who is indef topic banned).--MONGO02:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can I get an SPI I opened closed? I'm now of the opinion that it was a misunderstanding - over-enthusiasm on my part, and lack of experience on the other two editors parts.
Don't want to waste anybody elses time with it when there's no need.
User is still editing on a proxy out of Amsterdam (I forgot to block logged in editors - have rectified that now). Tell him to change his isp and then maybe someone will think about it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what is possibly the finest sentence composed on wiki this year: "What he reacts badly to is being 'handled' by 'the management' (as he perceives it) - this is much, much less of a problem for the encyclopaedia than civil POV pushers skewing articles by eliminating their more forthright correctors, spammers, advertisers, political censors, sly vandals, Randy in Boise and anything that affects the continued creation and maintenance of accurate content." --RexxS (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen of the Roads, you've confirmed the IP range and this editor has three times trolled on arbcom pages, now in this farce of Cla68 If you can give some explanation of why he came to edit Grunsky matrix as Ansatz(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) did, that would be a start. 99% of the edits are by me: the article is a specialist article created by on geometric function theory. Please explain. He has trolled in the past about five times in Ferhago's 2012 request for amendment, with as far as I remeber four different accounts. Why exactly do you think it might not be him? Mathsci (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both users are disruptive across project pages, R&I and other topics
Both users have associated themselves on- and off-wiki with the Deviant Art group who have chosen to target User:Mathsci for harassment off-wiki.
Both users have knowingly violated the letter and spirit of the relevant ArbCom motion as indicated above.
Both users have indulged in personal attacks to the level of harassment against User:Mathsci on-wiki, at a time when due to ill-health he is not able to respond.
There are multiple reasons for both users to be blocked indefinitely.
Anyway, apart from stalking me here, why should this recently arrived editor have a clue about the back history of Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin and DeviantArt? Very hard to find any kind of reasonable explanation, Elen, and the IP range is hardly a coincidence. Why did the other sock also edit Grunsky matrix? Why have they both been editing articles related to Spirella?
Honestly, no wonder editors are leaving wikipedia in droves. Both accounts were created in autumn 2009 as sleeping socks. All of this conforms with Echigo mole. Obvious sock is obvious. Mathsci (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will not clog up your talk page rehashing arguments that have already been made, and refuted, at SPI. Let me just say that two users editing the same page are not necessarily the same person, whatever a third user may believe and however often and loudly he says it. Oh, and when we see that "Both accounts were created in autumn 2009 as sleeping socks" it was probably meant to read "The accounts were started in Autumn of 2009 and 2011". A shame if that spoils the story. Spar-stangled (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's how sockpuppetry works. You've both edited relatively few articles and the probability that you both edit Grunsky matrix and Spirella Building as unrelated users is close to 0. Yet you both did, along with the troll sock pseudo-mathematician Ansatz. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you visit SPI you will enter a world where editing the same articles is evidence of being the same person, and not editing the same articles is also evidence of being the same person. But I probably should have said "sock or meat puppet" Spar-stangled (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is quite as disconnected as the "loony logic" you have used twice to make the trolling claim the The Devil's Advocate is Captain Occam. Their personalities on wikipedia are completely different. Why make trolling comments like that? That this sock trolls about my illness in a creepy way is typical of Echigo mole. Like William Hickey he is trying to imitate my style and language, but here without great success. Mathsci (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, please see my comment about this on RFAR. If you feel there is any impropriety in me commenting in this section, feel free to take the discussion with me to my talk page or to the arbitration request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. I have no reason to believe a single word Spar-stangled says - this account is clearly disruptive (I note NuclearWarfare has decided he is definitely Mole). To be honest, it's the other account that bothers me, for reasons I won't go into here (WP:BEANS and all that). Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know that, but it was pretty clear to me that he was a clearly a returning user trolling at the very least. NW(Talk)06:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Rich. The problem is that you don't like it that I blocked Pen. The reason is easy - blocked users aren't allowed to create sockpuppets. It doesn't matter what the sockpuppets do - the user is blocked and not allowed to edit, from any account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that there were other blockworthy issues as well. It doesn't necessarily mean that he or she could never ask to come back, but based on the overall pattern of behavior this was, or should have been, a noncontroversial block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except, of course, that Elen removed talk page access, which she has promised to restore, subject to certain undertakings which have been given. Previously some excuse about a BASC appeal was made, but that seems to be invalid. As you know I am involved in trying to increase the editorship, it always seems unfortunate that the reaction of many members of the community is block, and then prevent any appeal. This is doubly troubling with the current meme which no one seems to be working against "look at his block log". We are effectively creating a criminal class with what is supposed to be a simple preventive measure. I detest removal of talk page access except in extremis, and even then it need not be permanent nine times out of ten. Basically the idea that I espouse is that we have a welcoming community that works together to remove obstacles in the way of creating an encylopædia. While I know others have other aims, I believe that the majority of Wikipedians share this goal, even if they are not that clear in expressing it. Writing a good faith contributor off is against my nature, as is reneging on an agreement. In this case Pen cannot reasonably address the issues (which effectively seem to be one good faith redirect, and an unwisely phrased comment) which lead to the blocks. While I think it unlikely that Pen wants to return to the project at this stage, to continue to deny the opportunity to put a case would be contrary to natural justice, churlish and a bad example. RichFarmbrough, 23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, Pen can email BASC, as you are very well aware. They could even email BASC to ask for their talkpage to be unlocked so they can request unblock onwiki. So far as I know, they have not done this. In fact, they told Bishonen that they were not looking to be unblocked at this time. When Peny is feeling up to it, they can email me, BASC, Arbcom or any administrator to ask if they can have their talkpage restored to request an unblock. But I think it should wait until they do it themself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's a shame, as ever, to see you going back on your word on this. You claimed Pen was appealing to BASC as your reason for not doing anything. Now you claim it is because he could if he wanted. Not doing this is tantamount to deliberately erecting barriers to requesting an unblock - it looks extremely bad, especially as the original block was so intemperate. You should do this for three reasons, firstly because I am asking, secondly because it is bad form to both block someone and to deny them the primary route to request an unblock (you should at least have left that to another administrator), and thirdly it is the right thing to do. RichFarmbrough, 17:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, Peny is in email contact with several people (not you I presume) any of whom would ask me to lift the protection if Peny asked them, but Peny's not doing so, and as far as I can tell that is a deliberate action on Peny's part. I intend to respect Peny's wishes here. It would probably be good if you could do the same. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There you go with your mind-reading again. I am in contact and have full support. However I preferred to suggest that you do it simply because it was the right thing to do, rather than because I was acting as an advocate or messenger. I would repeat that blocking an editor from their own talk page was introduced as a measure to be used for serious cases, not comparatively innocuous ones like this. RichFarmbrough, 09:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
In A Child of the Jago the typical response to an unwanted request to borrow a pan was along the lines of "I haven't go one, I'm using it, I already leant it out and what's more it's at the menders." To a large extent your prevarication here is beginning to create the same impression. You said
"If either of you can persuade Penyulap to stop creating sock accounts while blocked, they can have their talkpage access back to expound further on these fascinating topics"
"Penyulap has appealed to WP:BASC so it's in their hands now"
"Pen can email BASC, as you are very well aware"
"I intend to respect Peny's wishes here."
These all look now like red-herrings. Meanwhile 2 months have elapsed. Having a good turn of phrase, and using humour makes you a very personable editor and admin, however at some point you have to actually engage your brain and moral compass. I believe it is quite likely that Pen will not request an unblock, and may never even use his talk page - and even that that might not be a bad thing. Nor do I delude myself that were Pen to request an unblock, and be unblocked there is not a significant chance that he would be reblocked at soem later date. Nonetheless there is a moral and pragmatic imperative to stick to one's word, regardless of the other good reasons. This is not just about Pen. For example I trusted you to stick to your word and you have let me down - and wasted a lot of my time. Possibly Bish and others were expecting you to keep to what you said too. This sort of thing is not conducive to a good working environment.
Please now, without any further delay, do what you said you would, and restore Pen's talk page access.
Does Penyulap now wish to post an unblock request? If so, please ask them to email me, Arbcom or some admin that they trust to ask for talkpage access to be restored. If they don't wish to post an unblock request, they have no need of talkpage access anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pen is aware of this thread and may well wish to follow your suggestion. You are, though, making up procedure and policy on the hoof.
You removed Pen's access to this talk page on the basis that he had issues with SPI, or on the basis of actions possibly taken on Commons (your explanation muddles the two issues).
Neither of these are good grounds for removing talk page access, and while talk page access is required for the normal process of posting an unblock request, it is wrong to suggest that this is the only reason that we should be reluctant to block it. We should use the minimum sanction necessary, and there is no sign that allowing Pen access to his talk page caused or will cause any disruption, except perhaps if his criticism of SPI touch a sore spot for you. No one is required to read Pen's talk page, and he can make contributions to the project from there if he wishes and the community will enable it. Indeed I see two requests for help there now.
Just as a reminder our page on blocking talk page access says:
This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page.
So while Pen has of course the option to use email (which we should not be forcing on users, for many reasons), you have the option to go with standard usage, policy and common sense and restore his talk page access unilaterally. I think this is something where you can reasonably change your mind, and I think it is by far the best thing that you do so and be the person who removes that restriction, indeed that is the reason I came to you rather than any other admin or forum.
Why? Bearing in mind that this is an encyclopaedia, not Twitter, Facebook or WordPress, what would he want to use it for? Or rather, since you're the one making the fuss, what do you want him to be able to use it for? The only thing he can write is an unblock request, and he doesn't (apparently) want to do that, so why are you so all fired to get his talk page access re-enabled, given that I'm just going to remove it again the minute he starts up on anything but an unblock request? Help me out here - this is genuinely not making sense to me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your edit summary request for reason: restoring tpa would give Penyulap rope and perhaps bring this to closure faster than going back and forth with RF. Nobody Ent23:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably take it off your watchlist Elen. I went back and looked at the text that you objected to, Pen was saying that the SPI/CU process was as obscure to him as certain graphics programs he uses fluently are to some who find SPI/CU process straightforward. I can't for the life of me see why you consider that trolling. I do think you got this very wrong, and you are compounding it here. There is no policy that says blocked users can only use their talk page to request an unblock as far as I am aware, and plenty of examples of users who have helped the project while being restricted to talk page access only. I think Nobody Ent's point is also valid, though I would hope that it doesn't end that way. RichFarmbrough, 02:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I think Ent has the right of it, it's not worth arguing about. I will remove the restriction, Peny should be aware that WP:UP#NOT and WP:OWNTALK apply, and abusing their talkpage and getting it reblocked is very unlikely to count positively should they wish to be unblocked at any point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I going to argue about your re-enabling of talk page access, Elen, since I'm not even sure in myself what's in Penyulap's best interests as long as the block itself is left in place. But I'm sorry to see Nobody Ent's comment above, and I'm sorry to see you take a toehold against it after blowing off Rich F's reasoned arguments. NE is usually an enlightened talkpage poster, but referring to WP:ROPE is seldom clever. In this instance it's a thoughtless, dehumanizing way of expression. Penyulap is a well-meaning user. And how much more hanged than an indefblock can he get? And if your (E's) statement that "I'm just going to remove [talk page access] again the minute he starts up on anything but an unblock request" is based on WP:UP#NOT and WP:OWNTALK, I think your reading of them is pretty idiosyncratic. I hope that was a heat-of-the-moment remark rather than an actual signal of intention. Bishonen | talk00:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Shown your hand now rather, haven't you [47]. Well, the same rule applies to Penyulap as to any other blocked user, so any outcome is really rather down to him than to me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I apologize for stirring the pot. What I observed is two editors I respect (RF and yourself) apparently stuck in an interaction that neither of you seemed to be enjoying and appared to have a straightforward solution. I used the existing rope essay as shorthand for the concept that unblocks are cheap and no lasting harm to Wikipedia would occur if it turned out not to work. I believe Bish does have a valid point about the etymology of the phrase being sketchy; unfortunately WP:UNBLOCKS ARE CHEAP is redlinked and I don't have wikitime to write it today. Nobody Ent16:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ent, you of all people have nothing to apologise for. What I took from your statement was that there was no point myself and Rich continuing to bicker. I decided that either I should tell him the discussion was closed, or I should review whether there was any particular reason to keep Penyulap from accessing their talkpage. When I looked, they seemed to have moved on to participating in some image work and seemed calmer, so I thought 'why not'. As I said above, the same rules apply to Peny as to every other blocked user - and being repeatedly locked out of your own talkpage does tend to count against you. On the other hand, if he remains calm and hasn't socked anywhere for six months, then things are much better. Peny would have to request an unblock themselves though, and handle the response from the reviewing admin, not have Rich or Bish or someone proxy it for them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness for that, I don't know why it had to be such hard work, but at least it is done. And I totally understood what Ent meant. I don't like Elen's negative attitude to Bish, and I think that given that Elen claimed to support untprotecting of the talk page, this is doubly unfortunate. Thank you for restoring Pen's talk page access. RichFarmbrough, 18:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
They were deffo not socks - they are all over the planet. And while they are editing in support of each other, I think this is because they are astrologers and they support each other anyway (ie not meatpuppetry which is getting someone to make your edits for you). This is not to say they are all fine - their editing might be problematic and deserve blocks anyway, but that's not what SPI is for. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
which is why I think it would be good to give time so the behavioural evidence can be looked at for a DUCK, rather than closing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't close it. I just marked it as checked and noted that CU wasn't really any help - my usual pattern where it may be possible to make determinations based on behavioural evidence. Some of the other admins who work SPI (or used to work, we seem a bit short at the moment) have a much better nose for behavioural issues than I have. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fishing. DQ and I checked all the SPAs and were surprised when LlamaAl turned up. halloween hasn't turned up on any check so far, and I can't see any behavioural beyond being an MMA fan. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edits of Miufus don't appear to be those of a newbie [50]. Also this gives the impression they didn't know about each others' accounts. So, "newbie" sister who is pretty familiar with Wikipedia but doesn't know that her brother is editing. It seems rather implausible. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Talk:Astrological_sign. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
[51] Bali/Dan is back at calling people "anonymous propagandists," despite having been blocked before by you for continued personal attacks. Are you allowed to handle it, or should I take it to ANI (some threads on your talk page discuss Bali if you want to refresh on it)? --JethroB04:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JethroB your aggressive and constant agitation for sanctions against editors you disagree with is jarring and inconsistent with your statement that there is "nothing really wrong" with an editor you agree with accusing other editors of being "accomplices to murder" and that such a statement is "not for admins". Do you honestly feel that your actions in this regard are consistent with the policies and purposes of the encyclopedia? :Just for the record, in this case Dan made a thoughtful comment about the source under discussion providing evidence relevant to the discussion. Ankhmorpork replied with an ad hominem directed at Dan, to which Dan responded in kind. As I recall this is pretty much the same pattern as the last time Jethro came to your talk page looking for sanctions against Dan. Dlv999 (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jethro B, I blocked BaliU for hate speech, having specifically warned him against using it. Can't see any hate speech in that diff, he is merely pointing out that you are an unknown individual and your edits appear to be propaganda for something or other. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Elen, but I'd like to point out he wasn't even replying to me. He was calling someone else a propagandist. I admit, I have trouble controlling my POV, and am quite astonished at how neutral editors like Dlv99 manage to be here and edit so neutrally. But that's for another day. --JethroB23:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does BStudent0 (who is still socking) have a thing for Tarc? It is I suppose possible - TforB is stale and wouldn't yield any cu evidence, but BStudent0 and A Nobody are both editing out of Ohio university campuses, and TforB definitely has a thing for Tarc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, you placed this SPI on hold. I haven't found any documentation on exactly what that signifies and I was just checking up because I didn't know if on hold meant a couple hours and you forgot or a couple days and it's still on hold. There's obviously no rush. RyanVesey17:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. If you want to know what all the codes etc mean, you should ask one of the SPI clerks - a better source. It's on hold - which means please don't close or archive it, but you can still add evidence - until another Checkuser gets back to me about something, and sometimes SPIs can be held for a week or more, although I hope this one wont be. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Elen. I'm alarmed by the proliferation of GA reviews that don't result in good articles. It makes us look stupid. So I'm asking a couple of admins where I should go to open a discussion of this. It seems to be a largely rogue process. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suppose that the starting point should be WT:GA. If that doesn't work, or to get input from somewhere different, probably WP:WPR. If it moves to proposing a change in the way GA operates, then you'd probably want an WP:RFC, although you could also use that now simply to gather opinions. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think one way to strive for better quality oversight would be to require a notification of the pending GA review at all projects that have bannered the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh. Looking more closely at the procedure, there's already a requirement that projects and even major contributing editors be notified. It just seems to be regularly ignored. The real problem, of course, is how to say politely "if you think this article has no major coverage gaps, you're just showing your effing ignorance." Cynwolfe (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely what I want. But since some of my favorite Wikipedia curmudgeons have been banished or are continually under threat of banishment, I try to conduct myself like a good eunuch at court. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bish, Elen, Rich: I've been trying to work out in my head how to say this, hoping to formulate something especially enlightened, pithy, succinct or compelling. Having crossed paths with all of you all overs the years, I've developed appreciation and respect for your efforts here. Seeing this develop has been like watching the beginning of a car crash: you see it develop, you know it's going to be bad, and there doesn't seem like there's a damn thing you can do to stop it. The best I've come up with is:
You're all acting like idiots, please stop.
I don't see specific enumeration, or relative ranking of your recent missteps, as a useful exercise. Penyulap was blocked by Coren back in July, followin an ANI discussion, so the good or bad of the block is on him. Whether or not Penyulap's talk page access is enabled isn't really significant to Wikpedia - the Encyclopedia. It's not that important, and certainly not important enough for ya'll to be at each other's throats. You all are hereby banned by the Ent from interacting with each other for a week or so, or until your brains return to their usually rational state. This ban will not be enforced by blocks, threats or noticeboard dramas, but rather (hopefully) by their being enough sanity in your respective brains to see the wisdom in what a very old Ent is sayin. Nobody Ent15:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ent, the only reason I'm leaving this here is because I only remove reasoned statements from my talkpage if they actually belong in another space on the project. Other than that, I recommend you let the matter drop, because you really aren't making it any better. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 00:20, 4 November 2012 (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.
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 00:50, 4 November 2012 (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.
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 02:30, 4 November 2012 (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.
Done by Elockid --DBigXray 15:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
wikipedia.org. Please supply diffs - I can't see where he is posting information about you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
CompletedAll socks back in drawer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(Unblocking someone through "friend of a friend" would be about as biased as you can get)
Not done is the unblock itself. So it's unsuccessful canvassing, but it's still canvassing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
