User talk:Elonka/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

WP:RFAR

I've asked for the motion to be accepted as a full case instead - in such a subtle matter, where, even if you were in the wrong, the remedy would need to be very light, a summary judgement seems inappropriate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible autobio

I have the suspicion that User:Buffalo15ny, who created and has extensively edited the article Terry Finn, is either the subject of the article herself or someone closely related. Finn seems notable for her Broadway career and other credits, but the article is a bit detailed and lacking in inline citations, and I've removed some complimentary POV over time (like here). This kind of edit just calls attention to itself. In any case, I am not saying there is any deceptive intent or invented content, but I wasn't sure what the best approach might be to tactfully suggest that this editor read Wikipedia:Autobiography, question their identity and potentially disclose the possible conflict of interest with the {{Notable Wikipedian}} template. Thanks! —  TAnthony ^Talk 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that a good way to prepare myself for these contacts, is to choose someone from my past that I really respected, but who wasn't (or isn't) very computer-literate. Then if I were to run across them on Wikipedia "breaking the rules", I wouldn't jump on them, but I might post a very friendly, "Hey, glad you're here, let me help show you the ropes" message. Once I'm in that frame of mind, it makes writing the message easier. Though if they react with defensiveness, I might have to update my mental image to, "elder person who I respected before, but is now getting a bit senile, and needs help getting around."  ;) With one such wiki-editor, I used a mental image of, "retired professor who still has an office, but has forgotten most of what he knows, and acts out from time to time". So I pictured myself going into his office and saying, "Yes, Professor Merlin, some might find that very funny, but really, you shouldn't be mooning the students through your window. Here, let me help you put your pants back on..." --Elonka 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's some imagination you have there. I'm sure there are places you can get help for that. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cowboy Hats

I am going to make changes to the Cowboy hat page see:text

-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent AE activities

Elonka, Do you feel that if you are acting within AE, your edits (not admin actions, but edits, such as lists) are protected per the SV decision? You seem to think so here and here and here. Are you aware that is not the commonly understood meaning of that motion? You are an editor. You cannot say "AE" and suddenly your edits are beyond reproach. The SV motion is about Admin actions - wheel warring, only one step further. You may have seen my Short version list of concerns/remedies on Rfar. I bring them here for discussion with you, direct:

• Citing SV to claim talk page edits are sacrosanct per AE and intimidating others with that is silly. AE is about AE; not drama-causing talk page lists.
• Administrators are not exempt from the recommendations of WP:DR.
• You have been ignoring the concerns of other editors; please give them serious thought and answer their questions about your reasons for controversial actions.
• Putting "warnings" on other editors' pages does not magically make their comments unworthy of consideration; rather it calls into question your motives in "warning" those who have expressed concern about your actions.

Something I didn't put on the list: if you don't have the support of most of the editors of a talk page, you cannot do much, if any, good there. Wielding an AE bat and trying anyway is an exercise in futility. I can see giving it a try; seeing if you can gain the trust of the people on the article. But if that is what you were doing, it has been an epic Fail. Time to withdraw. Maybe you're burned out; maybe its something else. But its not contentious editors; you're making the situation worse, by any metric.

I look forward to your response, and hope this can start a meaningful dialogue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that my understanding of the SV motion, is not what the current ArbCom is willing to support. As the consensus seems to be forming at RfAr, the motion only applies to direct administrative actions such as a block or ban. I am willing to respect the ArbCom's clarification of this matter, even though I disagree with it. What the arbitrators seem to be saying is that if an administrator wants their action to "stick", the admin should block or ban a user, since other admins can't reverse it, but if the admin chooses to simply post a warning or place a revert restriction on an article, that that can be reverted by other admins. I think this (encouraging admins to be quicker to block/ban than warn) is a bad idea, but I think that about a lot of things on Wikipedia. So I will do my best to adapt to the community norms, even though I think that this will result in more severe admin actions than necessary. --Elonka 17:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not mean you have to block more. Really. It just means that only admin actions are "protected" - do not block any more than before, really. But your edits are just as open to disagreement, questioning, and dispute as any other editors. That's where your interpretation has been different. You thought it meant your ordinary edits had "protection" but they don't. There is no encouragement to block or ban any quicker. Please let me know you understand me here. You are, again, in error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, look at it this way - some admins feel comfortable undoing a block/warning etc. without talking to the other admin - other admins prefer to speak with the originating admin and work it out first. KillerChihuahua, you seem to be in the former group while Elonka is in the latter. No opinion on whether or not that makes someone "wrong" here, but clearly, you two have a very different style of editing, administration, communication - and well, just about everything. Its ok to be different ;) Shell ^babelfish 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Shell, it is fine to be different. It is not fine to be claiming an arbcom motion means something it doesn't, and using that to bolster your actions. While I appreciate your desire to see peace, your suggestion is, I am sorry to say, not helpful in this instance. Currently Elonka is saying that if her unique interpretation of the SV motion is not supported by ArbCom, and it is not, she feels she is being encouraged to block or ban more. I find that extremely alarming and not in Wikipedia's best interests. I will not keep silent when I see such a serious error being made. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it isn't helpful is because, simply put, you're convinced that you're the only one who's right here. It took poor decisions by many editors, including yourself, to reach this point. Its time to put down the stick and back away from the horse.

I believe with that particular concern that you're putting words in her mouth - if you'll look again at what she said, it was that if admins can simply undo any AE action they see fit unless its a block or a ban, then its possible that admins working in AE might be quicker to block or ban to avoid situations like what we have now. This is worlds different than "she's being encouraged to block or ban more". Is it possible that your frustration is causing you to read nefarious intentions where there are none? Shell ^babelfish 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking to me, Shell? I'm not convinced of any such thing. If I have given that impression I have certainly not phrased myself well somewhere. Would you please point me to whatever edit I made which gave you that incredibly wrong opinion? thanks much. And I'm going by what she said here and on Rfar, and she said it will encourage admins to block and ban more. See above, "(encouraging admins to be quicker to block/ban than warn) is a bad idea" per Elonka. What words did I put in her mouth? Please clarify. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you agree that its a bit leap to go from someone stating the opinion "this will encourage admins to block/ban more" to "Look out, Elonka's planning on blocking/banning more people"? Shell ^babelfish 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

She clearly states Admins will be encouraged to do so. She's an admin. So far as I am aware, she's the only one asserting that the ArbCom's motion will encourage admins to block and ban more. Its simple math. She's the only one who reads it that way, so she's the only one I'm worried about. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with her. By allowing warnings, notifications and that sort of thing to be arbitrarily challenged without notification or discussion, you are implicitly encouraging the use of methods that won't be arbitrarily over-turned. That doesn't mean I'm going to run out blocking/banning people (I rarely do), but it does mean that I'm concerned that over time, admins who have their warnings/notifications removed may turn to blocking sooner than they would have before. Your viewpoint on that may differ since you don't put as much weight on overturning the work of other admins - but discussing the impact of this or that ruling on the community is just that - a discussion. No need to go about beating folks over the head about who's going to be right. Shell ^babelfish 19:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well damn, that makes two, then. Please heed this advice: Don't be any hastier to block or ban than you would be beofre you understood what ArbCom meant in the SV ruling. See, it sounds silly as heck doesn't it? And I very strongly take exception to your assertion that I "don't put as much weight on overturning the work of other admins" - I take that as an insult and a very hurtful one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* Did you really miss the part where I said "That doesn't mean I'm going to run out blocking/banning people (I rarely do)..." and then clearly stated my concern? And yes, it is my opinion that if you feel it appropriate to engage in an edit war on an AE log page, you don't give fellow admins much respect. Shell ^babelfish 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Regarding the "edit war": I made one edit there. One. It was an excessively minor edit in a minor edit war, in which Elonka, multiple admins, and at least one Arbiter was involved. Wasn't the best way all that could have been handled, no doubt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't miss it, then I guess I'm just completely confused as to why you're making the same leap in incorrectly assuming that I would change my blocking or banning habits. As far as the edit war, it seems a bit silly to fuss over who was "more wrong" - edit warring on an AE log is just pretty darn silly any way you look at it. Shell ^babelfish 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice is not the same as an assumption you'd do the opposite of the advice; indeed, one often, if not always,hopes one's advice is not needed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"So I will do my best to adapt to the community norms, even though I think that this will result in more severe admin actions than necessary. --Elonka 17:22, 26 January 2009" looks very much like a threat to engage in WP:POINTy blocking of editors on the same dubious grounds as she has been issuing warnings. That would clearly be disruptive, and I hope that is not the intention. Shell, I'm glad to hear that's not your practice, unfortunately it's Elonka's actions that have raised concerns. . dave souza, talk 20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got a wild idea - instead of guessing, how about we ask Elonka what she meant by it? Elonka, could you please clarify? Shell ^babelfish 20:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Dave, you're an involved editor in this topic area, as is KillerChihuahua. What would be more helpful here is to obtain comments from uninvolved admins. Getting to the substance of your comment though, no, I have never engaged in "pointy" blocks or bans, and I have no intention of doing so in the future. --Elonka 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As your definition of "involved" is rather all-encompassing and keeps changing, it seems to me that you'd do better to heed the current ArbCom motion about heeding advice from your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Shell is uninvolved, and he's she's asking you a direct question. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with that answer - unless anyone's worried that "I have no intention of doing so in the future" is ambiguous? Shell ^babelfish 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the 1979 election Margaret Thatcher repeatedly stated that she had no intention of increasing value added tax, then after winning the election doubled it. A local quirk, and my hope is that in this case it is clear that Elonka will not block any more quickly after this clarification by arbcom. I would note that by the AE definition I'm uninvolved, however my tendency is to treat blocking with great caution. . dave souza, talk 00:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Politicians - can't live with em, can't shoot em :) Shell ^babelfish 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny given that this whole kerfuffle is no more than politics run amok: recall that a cwertain admin lists her profession as "game developer". 'Nuff said, I'd think. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Can you explain what you mean with the "game developer" bit, and how it's relevant? Avruch ^T 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MMORPG. Giggy (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dang, I looked for that and couldn't find it! Excellent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wild horse

A while back you left a comment on Talk:Wild horse, to which this is a follow-up of sorts. I have proposed disambiguating Wild horse, which now is a grab-bag of content about ''Equus ferus, feral horses, and the horse breed known as the Heck horse: see Talk:Wild horse. --Una Smith (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be less careless in handing out "warnings"

You really need to be more careful when handing out "warnings" like this one. If you are going to hand out official-sounding warnings, you need to take the time to get your facts right. Contrary to your assertion on SA's talk page, no one referred to Patton as "pathological". While I realise that there's an awful lot to read and digest in discussions like this, you really need to take the care to read a comment carefully before you "warn" people.

With regards to your second statement, your accusation that his edit summary was "uncivil" is simply untrue. Our civility policy is meant to regulate the way we interact with our fellow editors. SA's comment is directed at a study, not at a fellow Wikipedian (unless, of course, you are saying that LLM is Paton, and that SA is somehow supposed to be aware of this; I see nothing on LLM's user page which indicates anything of the sort). Making false accusations of incivility is in itself uncivil. Please refrain from doing things like this. It reflects badly on you as an editor, and it reflects badly on the project, since you are an admin.

Finally, it's unbecoming to use a warning of any sort to further a content dispute. I realise that content disputes like the one you are engaged in on the pseudoscience list can get very heated. But seriously, in your comment to SA you flow straight from a warning into advocacy in defense of Paton's paper as a source. Please step back from this fight for just a moment and look at the paper seriously. It says "I interviewed 100 students in a class, and 98 of them agreed with me". No matter who these students are, no one can reasonably draw conclusions from as non-random a sample as that.

While I realise that this is probably just the product of a heated editing dispute, you really need to separate your role in content disputes from your desire to issue warnings. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the content dispute. I'm not editing the article, and have no preference on which sources are used. But to call a living person "pathological" is not helpful to the editing environment, and to say that a source was not peer-reviewed, when it appears that it *is* peer-reviewed, is not helpful either. --Elonka 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that you are involved in a content dispute. You are arguing over the validity of sources with SA. That's what content disputes are.

Of course, if you aren't engaged in a content dispute, then your behaviour is more worrying. I warned you several month ago about trying to provoke needless conflict by digging up stale "issues" with other editors. And yet, here you are back in conflict with the same editors. If you aren't there as part of a content dispute, then why the heck are you there? To stir up further antagonism? I certainly hope that isn't the case, because that would be serious disruption on your part.

With regards to the original post you made on SA's page (the original reason for this warning, or "word to the wise", if you would prefer), at the very least you should strike your "civility" warning, as I explained above. You should also stop repeating the allegation that SA "called Paton pathological". I already pointed out that you have misrepresented his statement. Your continued mischaracterisation is unacceptable and a borderline attack.

Just stop. It would be fine for you to ask SA to re-word his comment, since it is possible to misinterpret it, as you obviously did. And then, if you actually have no interest in the article, please step away from it. Inserting yourself into disputes simply because you see an opportunity to further an ongoing argument is unacceptable for any Wikipedian. Especially on who the community has entrusted additional privileges. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot deny the fact that SA *did* call Paton pathological, because he did, disregarding what kind of interpretation is taken. Guettarda, I ask you to not get involved in something which you were not a party-- if SA has an issue, let him raise it. You're just muddling the water at the moment. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. I hope you can see the irony in this sentence: "I warned you several month ago about trying to provoke needless conflict by digging up stale "issues" with other editors." Aside from that I have little commentary except that the title could be rephrased to read "Please be less careless more careful in handing out "warnings"" As it stands it seems unnecessarily provocative. Protonk (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, please apply some common sense. People must be able to discuss the validity of sources, and some sources are simply not well regarded. No one is suggesting that content be placed in the article, and right now SA isn't claiming Palin rapes kittens or anything BLP-worthy from the talk page perspective. It is clear he is offering an opinion. He even qualifies with "best described as... in my book." A highly unflattering opinion, but it is really clear whose it is. This is not BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the comment was borderline, which is why my request to ScienceApologist was simply to refactor the comment to be more civil. As some background on this, I recommend reading the discussion at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. There was a steadily escalating thread of discussion that was getting more and more heated, as another editor (Landed little marsdon (talk · contribs)) seemed to be producing source after source in response to comments by ScienceApologist, and SA was systematically trashing them. When it got to the point that SA called a professor's research "pathological", it also tipped LLM over the edge, who referred to the comment as "libelous". It was at that point that I stepped in. I asked LLM to avoid the talkpage for a few days, and I asked ScienceApologist to consider rewording his comment. This seems to me to have been a reasonable and even-handed way to address the situation. Based on your above comments, it seems that you might have handled it differently, by ignoring both comments and just letting the discussion continue. Is this accurate? Or what might have you done instead? --Elonka 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the cases where some knowledge is helpful. The professor in question is not taken seriously by anyone in this field. Dunno as I'd say he is "pathological" but I might support "crank". Either way, your warning caused Yet More Drama rather than helping anything at all, and bears the color of favoring Fringe over Science yet again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, continuing to issue warnings to editors you are obviously engaged in conflict with is unhelpful and is straying into serious disruption. Even if you don't believe that you are an involved editor in pseudoscience, the simple fact that so many editors believe otherwise means that your "policing" does more harm that good. Please disengage. Whatever your intentions, this does no good for the project. Please stop. Guettarda (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to second that motion. Go to AN/I if you feel the need to issue warnings. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about your approach to ArbCom enforcement

Elonka, I'm concerned about your approach to ArbCom enforcement. In my opinion, AE should be about ensuring the smooth running of the project, instead of creating needless drama. Your approach appears to be overly confrontational, to such an extent the emphasis shifts away from the article, and you become the focus of attention. For example, your approach of creating a list of editors on the talk page including their notifications and sanctions is unhelpful. If you wanted to set up a wikiproject focused around dispute resolution in the areas of fringe science and pseudoscience, similar to WP:SLR or WP:IPCOLL, and maintain 'battleground statistics' that would be perfectly ok. However, while projects such as WP:SLR and WP:IPCOLL have to some extent reduced problems, I believe your recent involvement at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts has only aggravated them. PhilKnight (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I'll keep it in mind going forward. --Elonka 00:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, I agree with PhilKnight, yet I notice in your response that you've said the same thing to several editors and admins who've asked you to reconsider your position. Can you say whether you're willing to change your approach, and to consider withdrawing from administering pseudo-science related articles (or any other that the same editors are involved in)? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am always adapting my approach.  :) In terms of this particular pseudoscience article, I will no longer be placing a "list of editors" on the talkpage, unless there is stronger support for such a thing. I'm also closely watching the ArbCom discussions about the extent of the "SV" motion to ensure that I refer to it according to the arbs' guidance in the future. As for withdrawing from the pseudoscience disputes, the main problem there is that there just aren't any other neutral administrators who seem to be willing to take on such a complex (and dangerous) topic area. If other admins do step forward and wish to play a more active role in stabilizing the article, I would have no trouble with phasing out my own participation. I did this with the Chiropractic article, where once other admins such as Shell Kinney and Tim Vickers were more engaged, my own efforts were not needed as much. With the "list of pseudosciences" article, to be honest, I really didn't want to take it on because of the complexity, but things just kept getting steadily worse over a period of months. Then when the article was placed under indef protection, I decided I was going to have to step in, since no one else was. If the editors there want me "gone", my criteria are quite simple: The article has to be out from under protection, relatively stable, and the discussion at the talkpage needs to be progressing in a way that shows that the editors there are able to resolve their own disputes in a civil and collegial way. If the article can get to that state, then administrative intervention won't be needed anymore, and I will mark the dispute "closed", and happily turn my attention to other projects. --Elonka 04:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think you need to withdraw before that. There comes a point with admin action where the presence of a certain admin is like a red rag to a bull, and only makes things worse. That point was reached some time ago with you. It's not a question of it necessarily being your fault, and it may not be fair; it's just that that is now the perception, rightly or wrongly. I'll be honest with you — I would not want to edit any articles where you appeared as an AE admin. In fact, I withdrew from editing Muhammad al-Durrah because of you, an article I believe I had more edits to than anyone else, and the quality of which I cared about. But I took it off my watchlist because I strongly disagreed with your AE approach (even though it wasn't me you were taking action against, and I did want the reverting to stop). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize that not all editors approve of my style. However, the ultimate goal is improving the articles, and my efforts at the Muhammad al-Durrah article appear to have been successful, since the article has been fairly stable for quite some time now, even though it had been in a state of dispute for a long time (over a year I think) before I arrived. I was involved in managing the dispute in June and July 2008. When the article had been stable for awhile, I announced that I was lifting the editing restrictions, which expired on September 30, 2008, and I have not used any discretionary sanctions there since then. If you would like to return to editing the article, I encourage you to do so. --Elonka 04:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts at Muhammad al-Durrah were not successful. You drove away two editors who, between them, could have produced a good article (I'm thinking of Chris and myself, though whether he was permanently driven away, I don't know as I've not looked recently). We could have every single article on WP become stable by protecting them all, but what would the point of that be?

You say that not all editors approve of your style. I'd be surprised if any do, yet you seem determined to plough on and do whatever you want, despite many, many uninvolved people asking you to stop. Do you find that reasonable? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs of these "many, many uninvolved people" asking me to stop? --Elonka 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, perhaps it escaped your notice, but the section User_talk:Elonka#Discretionary_sanctions above has 5 editors asking you to disengage. There are more, right here on this talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, by definition they are all involved and hence their opinion can (and has going by the above) be ignored. Shot info (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What, by Elonka's definition? ArbCom appears to be clarifying that she should still listen to input, even regarding AE. And what about Phil, who started this section? He's uninvolved. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Semantics

Elonka;
Adding to the greek chorus here, but in reviewing your interactions with respect to AE I'd suggest that they have at times been sub-optimal. There are literally thousands of other things that needs doing (Images for deletion is chronically undermanned) so, as gently as possible, what are the conditions under which you'd consider leaving this area entirely? I'm not trying to be a wise-acre, just trying to remove any ambiguity:

• Is there a particuler editor or group of editors?
• Is there some number of random editors needed to sign, pseudo-recall-from-AE style?
• ArbCom? One or more coming outright?

Clearly you're deeply passionate and want to see the best article result that is possible. We mostly share that aim. Where we differ is only small, really.
brenneman 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to SlimVirgin, above. --Elonka 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's unlikely to happen, especially with you there. Sorry, but you're just stirring things up too much. What if there was an uninvolved admin, or a couple of them, willing to take on Pseudoscience (and no I don't mean me.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-read your respone several times. I find there to be some slight dissonance between the question that I asked and your response. I am looking for clarity, and it appears you're saying that no matter how many otherwise uninvolved admins/editors ask, if I may paraphrase, you're saying "I'll step away when the job's done, a.k.a. when I decide to do so," is that correct?

brenneman 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Or if other administrators are willing to manage the area. Are you volunteering?  :) --Elonka 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This feels, to me, like I'm wrestling eels here. I'll assume good faith in that you're not trying to be difficult, and that we're just suffering from different modes of communication. I think in LEGO, so please bear with the following bullet points while I click the pieces together:

1. You're saying that if I volunteer you'll step away from "manag[ing]"
2. Thus it's implicit that you trust my judgement in doing so.
3. Part of that judgement would include deciding when an editor's involvement in discussions was not helpful.
4. Thus I would be able, at my discretion, to suggest (then warn, then block) an editor who continued to be involved.
5. Said editors would not have discretion in setting terms for their disengagment, e.g. "I'll leave this page if User:Foo leaves too."
   Up to there, I find it difficult to imagine a tenable disagreement with any of the above statements. Here comes the doozy:
6. Yes, I'll step up.
7. My first action is to ask nicely for you to step away from this area, as I find your AE contibution's net effect to be negative.
   

Of course, I'm not actually going to try to recursivly use the ArbCom Enforcement clause to stop you from taking part in ArbCom Enforcement. I'm simply attempting to illustrate to you that there is little or no rational defence for refusing to put down the stick and back away from the horse. Saying "But no one else can (or is willing) do the job!" is classic Defender of the Wiki^TM thinking.

There are thousands of admins, thousands of jobs. We've all got different skill sets: I've never written a bot, or a Feature Article. ArbCom Enforcement will get by without you, really, I promise.
brenneman 23:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I like Legos too (just finished the Collector's Edition Star Destroyer, which is taking up a substantial part of my desk). :) I see you've unprotected the pseudosciences article, and I concur with the decision. Welcome aboard! I look forward to working with you -- these complex areas are always easier to manage when there's more than one admin in the mix. Are you on IMs? --Elonka 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, respectfully, I believe Aaron is telling you he wants to take over and to please step away, as per your stated reasons for not steping away now (no other admin wants to do the job - not true anymore). That would be as opposed to co-managing with you, from what I gather.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, my tone was too harsh with you earlier. I apologize for that. I'll be completely frank here. The way I'm seeing you administer this dispute reminds me of the way I used to do things. I spent a couple of years being far too active as an admin, and then on top of that I edited a lot, which added up to too many hours a day spent on WP. It led to an inability to step back and judge my actions accurately, or see myself through others' eyes. I started almost to feel that every problem on WP had to be addressed by me, and that anyone objecting to my approach was just getting in the way, or simply didn't understand.

Since I stopped using the tools as much (and now I don't have access to them), I started to see things much more from other people's point of view, and I very much regret my previous approach. I see other admins doing the same thing now, and you are one of them. I don't think it's really you. I think it's what adminning can do to people, especially if you're over-active. I'm starting to think it would be wiser for people to be admins for six months then to lose the tools for the next six months, just to make sure perspective isn't lost.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't think you're doing yourself or the pseudoscience dispute any favors at the moment. I mean this in a constructive way, not as an attack, so I very much hope you'll take it in that spirit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Really?

What reason?[1] You have accused me of Edit warring in Pseudoscience articles on your ArbCom statement. Please either strike that or provide some evidence. I have tried to talk to you about this accusation, Hipocrite has tried to talk to you about this, and as far as I can tell the ONLY reason for blanking and removing this is that you have no evidence. You once said editors should "put up or shut up". Eitehr provide difs or strike your accusation, which I find harmful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I define edit-warring pretty much as it is described at WP:EDITWAR. There are of course different types of edit-warring: Some involve multiple reverts per article per day, which is why we have the WP:3RR rule. Another type of edit-warring is when editors engage in "team" reverting, showing up to support the edits of one of their allies. The pseudoscience topic area is particularly known for this tactic, as many editors use the articles and their talkpages as battlegrounds. Another type of edit-warring is the drive-by revert (often in support of an ally), where someone who wasn't involved in other edits to the article or even with the discussions at a talkpage, just shows up to revert the article and then moves on. Note I'm not talking about minor formatting changes or vandalism reversions -- edit-warring generally involves something more substantial, where another editor's good faith content changes have been reverted. It's also more likely to be called edit-warring when the revert is done as part of a coordinated effort, or the revert has been done with an inadequate edit summary, or comments that include incivility or a personal attack on the previous editor. --Elonka 01:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Care to back up your allegations? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In a brief scan of KillerChihuahua's contribs, I found:

• Reverting to Orangemarlin's version at Orgone[2]
• Calling another editor (Martinphi) "obnoxious" at Talk:Orgone[3]
• Reverting Levine2112 at Chiropractic[4]
• Edit-warring at Pseudoscience about the inclusion of "Intelligent design".[5]
• Other reverts at Pseudoscience,[6][7][8][9][10] including about whether or not to include Chiropractic[11]

I'm not trying to make a case that there's anything block-worthy here, but I've seen enough to confirm that she's heavily involved in this topic area, and not shy about reverting other editors. --Elonka 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not edit warring, either. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And impressively stale (2-3 yrs old) for the most part.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See [12] KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother, now I see you only selectively removed the deleted comments I posted here[13] - you want to keep those two? KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Warn the other party

Do it now.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't warned them yet. I expect you to do this shortly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted a note at the article's talkpage. --Elonka 02:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So you tell SA he's looking at a ban[14] and the Fringe POV SPA you tell... nothing. At all. Just a blanket "no more edit warring" on the talk page. Elonka, you are enabling POV Fringe editors at the expense of people who are trying to keep this encyclopedia accurate per Fringe, NPOV, etc. and it appears you are pursuing a personal dislike of an editor. This is harming, not helping, Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the assumptions of bad faith, they're getting old. I was going to give a 3RR warning to the other editor, but while I was doublechecking the discussions, someone else posted the warning instead. So I just posted a comment at the article talkpage, which is directed at all editors, not just SA. --Elonka 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just hanging around your talk page waiting for you to back up your slander of me with some difs, instead of leaving me accused in front of Arbcom in your statement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you'd actually read the stuff I write, there is no assumption of bad faith there at all. I'm saying you did a, you didn't do b, it is giving this appearance, and that's harmful. You calling that "ABF" seems to be another version of LaLaLa I am not listening! sortof like you're libeling me and not listening to requests for difs, and you didn't listen to Hipocrite when he told you your difs were not evidence of edit warring. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then try looking at it from a different point of view. SA was edit-warring at an article that he'd previously been warned about, and so intensely that it even set off the 3RRbot flag. By all rights, I could have simply blocked or banned him. Instead, I opted to post a rapid message to his talkpage to cut it out, while I spent time looking deeper into the situation. It's probably the gentlest way that I could have handled it, no? Or should I have blocked first, investigated second? --Elonka 03:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Without having examined this in detail, I support Elonka's approach here. I think I would have handled this aspect of it the same way Elonka has. Being lenient with the block button is a good habit. Warning editors of an article on the article talk page is a good habit too I think. Excuse me for butting in. --John (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, she should recuse herself from pseudoscience articles, and anything to do with OrangeMarlin or ScienceApologist. She just warned SA with a ban. I support the "no warring" blanket notice on the talk page. I think Elonka isn't nuts enough to block someone she clearly has this strong a personal dislike for, but I could be wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be more reasonably interpreted as a warning of a page or topic ban? Avruch ^T 14:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

She didn't specify; further that's not the issue at hand. Its not the warning, its the subject and the parties involved. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, we might as well be talking in the wind. We must all submit. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not personally into that sort of thing, but I'm sure there are other editors who'll oblige. I assumed that since KC bolded "ban" a couple of times it might be useful to point out another interpretation. If that is evidence of my stupidity, guilty as charged! As for the warning, tempest in a teapot in my opinion. Among the long list of complaints registered around the wiki against Elonka, a 3RR warning is surely the least. Avruch ^T 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And if the teapot is WP itself?

However, you note "Among the long list of complaints registered around the wiki against Elonka", taken in toto that add up, eh? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, they add up to a lot of complaints. But it's like when federal prosecutors file 50 different charges against someone - they need to be evaluated individually anyway, because a huge stack of allegations doesn't in fact lend additional credibility to any single charge. My opinion on the sum of the complaints against Elonka is one I feel no real need to express, which is why I just poke in to comment about little things like this. Avruch ^T 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

Cross-namespace redirects are depreciated - see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects - "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects should be deleted (although very old ones might retain value for extra-Wikipedia links), and that Pseudo-namespace redirects (CAT:, P:, MOS:, etc) may freely be used." Please don't create them in the future without a very important reason, as it breaks the functionality of the searching mechanisms. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Arbitration enforcement. Since you had some involvement with the Arbitration enforcement redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm male, by the way. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted, and I apologize for the pronoun confusion. Now, perhaps you will take the time to re-review Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? You could have easily just changed the redirect to point to Arbitration. --Elonka 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I could have, but

1. I didn't think of that at the time, instead being focused on using it to create a new article (My incompetence not-withstanding, I have removed a bunch of cross-namespace redirects in the past for that exact reason), and
2. I don't want to engage in edit wars in you, even in the most oblique definition, as I'd hate to escalate with you. As such I decided that seeking other input from experience redirect-dealers-with was the right idea, and found the place to notify them. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, don't assume malice when ignorance or incompetence would apply. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering our history going back years, it is understandably difficult for me to assume good faith on your part, but I will try. For future reference, if you have concerns about one of my edits, you can either (a) change it yourself; (b) post a note about it on the relative talkpage; or (c) post a note about it on my talkpage. How's that? --Elonka 17:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take you up on that offer. I accept your difficulty as perfectly reasonable and hope we can get through it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rafe Hernandez

Hello. Your input is requested at the Rafe Hernandez talk page. I think perhaps we can merge this article. What do you think? Rm994 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

Appears to be a technical glitch of some sort on Talk:Slavery and the page appears to be saturated with vandalism and religious belief. Can it be cleaned up a bit, archived, whatever? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification by motion relating to arbitration enforcement restriction

The Arbitration Committee has amended the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin by successful motion, archived here, to include two clarifications of the initial remedy.

Effective immediately, the restriction applies only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users. It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. This is a provisional measure, pending the resolution of the arbitration enforcement request for comment. Furthermore, the Committee observed that administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution, and that the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard.

For the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Conflict

Hi Elonka, I just discovered that I had been banned with a notice by user:PhilKnight on my talk page. So then I got a link to the discussion from user:brewcrewer, bless his heart. He used to edit the article until he found it too frustrating. Perhaps it is all the individuals there with names like User:NonZionist and User:Falastine fee Qalby and a few others such as user:Nableezy who have made no bones about their bias and have pushed their POV against any and all with a differing perspective. Be that as it may, I just went to the discussion and added my 2cents. I was interested in your comment though. I notice that you supported me initially then changed your mind and supported my ban. Could I ask you what exactly you saw that decided you that I was deserving of the ban? Your good opinion means a lot to me.

By the way, I did just add my rationale to the ban-discussion, which was that the pictures were unbalanced, POV, and there was no consensus to add them. Since there was no consenus to add them, I thought that the burden was on those attempting to add the material. By the way, did you see the picture of the burned baby that was run over by an Israeli tank that was photographed by the International Solidarity Movement? We spent endless days discussing that one. Or from Al-Jazeera -- the pictues of the bodies piling up in a morgue? the wounds that were supposed to have been caused by white phosphorus (despite doctors' saying that it was impossible to tell by looking at the burn itself)? Picture after picture of dead and wounded children. The partisans on that page were requiring a discussion for every single picture claiming that the -pro-Israeli side was censoring them. Their acknowledged thinking was since there were so many child & civilian casualties that they should put pictures up 100:1 and that would still be fair. We had discussion after discussion on these pictures and it was even taken up at Jimbo Wales talk page. I brought everything up at the talk page but there was no consensus, not even a "rough" one as was alleged by user:Cyde... Oh well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the dead-baby discussion: [15] Archive 20. It was argued from January 14th to the 19th. Later more pictures were added in special galleries of casualties (ie Palestinian casualties) that I and other users removed. On January 20th at 1:38, user: William M. Connolley made this note on the talk page: [16]. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the page from the 20th at roughly 8:33 [17] as per William Connolley. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC) After William Connolley made his comment "I think emotive pix should stay *out* until there is a clear conclusion to the pix discussion above. The current state looks plausible to me. Further edit warring to include them, before the discussion is concluded, will be looked upon unfavourably," these were the edits in relation to the pictures in the days that followed:

[18] 21:00, 20 January 2009 Cdogsimmons (Talk | contribs) (137,941 bytes) (?Gazans: restored picture, based in part on talk page discussion, that was previously removed by Tundrabuggy) (undo)

[19] 17:55, 23 January 2009 John Hyams (Talk | contribs) (133,525 bytes) (?Casualties: Removing identifyable girl's face per discussion on talk page) (undo)

[20] 21:24, 23 January 2009 Cdogsimmons (Talk | contribs) (133,456 bytes) (Undid revision 266026666 by John Hyams (talk) If anything, there is consensus to keep the girl's image. Not remove it.) (undo)

[21] 16:27, 24 January 2009 Oren0 (Talk | contribs) (133,292 bytes) (?Casualties: re-remove dead girl photo, per discussion on talk. This doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose) (undo)

[22] 15:02, 24 January 2009 Brunte (Talk | contribs) (133,307 bytes) (Restore DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG) (undo)

[23] 15:09, 25 January 2009 Tomtom (Talk | contribs) m (136,432 bytes) (?Incidents) (undo) remove

[24] 16:38, 25 January 2009 Cdogsimmons (Talk | contribs) (136,080 bytes) (Undid revision 266206061 by Oren0 (talk) re-re-restored picture of dead girl removed by Oreno. No consenus on talk page for its removal.) (undo)

[25] 20:02, 25 January 2009 Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (139,411 bytes) (?Casualties: Removing image on the grounds that there is NO consensus on the talk page to include it, AND that it violates Undue#Balance) (undo)

[26] 22:02, 25 January 2009 Timeshifter (Talk | contribs) (139,770 bytes) (?Casualties: Gallery. Wikipedia is not censored. WP:CENSOR) (undo) (TimeShifter adds 4 photos)

[27] 23:38, 25 January 2009 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (140,606 bytes) (?Casualties: I dislike galleries, and I removed the wounded child picture as overkill, pun not intended) (undo) --

[28] 17:22, 26 January 2009 Tomtom (Talk | contribs) (141,090 bytes) (?Gaza strip: Removed pics of dead girl) (undo)

[29] 17:47, 26 January 2009 Cdogsimmons (Talk | contribs) (141,046 bytes) (Undid revision 266646493 by Tomtom (talk) Please see the talk page. There is consensus for keeping this picture.) (undo)

Now based on this, do you still agree agree that I should get a month off? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and here is the first list of the "editwarring" on that page from the ANI page where cerejota first reported me for editwarring. ("Contiguous edits count as one, so no vio".) My list can be seen here: [30]Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider it the end of the world. It's a terrible article, highly POV. I don't mind getting away from it. I hardly want to be associated with it. I know there are other good writers that try on that page but we are horribly outnumbered. I do think that it is a pretty poor show, however, that I was banned without either being warned nor even told about the case. And further those who are accusing are as guilty of putting the photos in as some of the rest of us are of taking them out. It's a insult really. If things are not consensus, why would taking them out lead to sanctions? Putting them in should lead to sanctions. I was just wondering why you ended up supporting a ban of any length. I appreciated the initial support, but wondered why you seemed to change your mind and acquiesce? Simply because that article has been my focus for awhile? surely not? You did suggest that you had looked into it more carefully and that you now agreed. I was just wondering what it was that led you to that decision. There are plenty of others on that article who edit nothing else and have edited nothing else, so it can't be that alone. That wouldn't really be fair, would it? A month's ban simply because I have focussed on this one article? There must have been some other reason that I am not getting. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, I have made a request for reconsideration at PhilKnight's page, just mentioning. But I have a question on wiki policy. Is one allowed to remove false information without it being considered edit-warring? I thought I had read that somewhere. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about the article from which you are currently banned, the best course of action is to bring it up at the talkpage, and let someone else take care of it. Especially on an article that's getting as much traffic as the Gaza conflict one is, bad info will probably be cleared out pretty quickly. As for other articles, if you see something that's clearly false (especially if it's unsourced), it can be deleted on the spot. If there is disagreement about whether or not it should be included, take the concerns to the talkpage and spell out why you think it's false (and provide sources where possible). The burden on providing sources to allow the inclusion of information, is on the editor who wishes to add it, not on the editor who wishes to remove it. --Elonka 05:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. Yes it has to do with the article for which I am banned, and of course at this point I can't change anything in the article. It was really a wider question though. Your point that bad info will be cleared out pretty quickly is actually factually wrong on this article. Some (in fact quite a bit) of "bad info" keeps getting reverted in because the page has a number of hard-cores who take on all comers. We get "warnings" on our talk pages about consensus, and some have openly said that unless we achieve consensus on the talk page, we must revert back to the original (or a particular) edit. That is why the lede appears stable, despite all sorts of people who have complained about its accuracy. There was occasional effort at some dispute resolution, but what appeared to be comments from neutral individuals were ignored. The article badly needs someone there to look after it, to listen on the talk page, and to help enforce some kind of neutrality. It is more than simple tendentiousness, there is blatant dishonesty. Sleeping now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the AE page you gave me a link to. I have a thought but it looks like most of the people there are admins. Would you post it (as from a fellow editor) or shall I? If me, where do I put it on the page? As a "proposal"? A "view"? under some other area? Or maybe you have a criticism of it?

• "As a fairly new editor and one who edits (though not exclusively) in one of the enforcement areas and am recently come under an article ban, I have perhaps a different take. Why not, when names come up at this area, (particularly in relation to edit-warring, which is a symptom rather than the disease) rather than simply taking a look and issuing bans, the admin goes to the article in question and helps guide the parties through dispute resolution? I knew that I should have gone to dispute resolution but it seems a difficult and confusing process. This would be a learning experience for all parties concerned and would be less contentious and generate fewer bad feelings among editors. " Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are plenty of non-admins there, so feel free to jump in.  :) You could post the above as a proposal in the bottom section, or if you're not comfortable with that, you could bring it up at the RfC talkpage. I know that many administrators and arbitrators are watching the page closely, so pretty much anything you say will be read carefully, especially because you're not one of the arb "regulars".  :) --Elonka 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Edit War"

This Cyndilayseggs is putting

ALL photographs for the album were taken by the artist Stefanie Schneider.

At the first part of information. It does not go there. I told her she but has not listened. So what can I do? I edit it away because it is not suppose to be there. AND THEN I GET BANNED?

--SoUnusual (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I am wondering if there is anything I can do to try to get a change of administrator from ChrisO to someone else in the matter of the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni article: I thought of contacting an Arbitrator but am not sure if that is the correct next step; any thoughts you may have would be appreciated.Marktunstill (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

LLM a sock?

I have left a note on LLM's talk page. Something's not right, and I really suspect sockpuppetry here. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This editor and several other recent, new, contributors seem familiar to previous editors and to each other, though it may be more than one person returning to this article. Thanks, Verbal chat 12:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I've been satisfied one editor is acting in good faith, having abandoned previous accounts, but I still hold the same reservations as Fyslee. Verbal chat 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I too am satisfied regarding the one editor, BA, but am also suspicious of LLM. His editing activity increased dramatically on Jan. 12, the same time that another user was indef blocked, IOW he was using the LLM sock a little bit before getting blocked. This needs investigating, since that user was known to use socks, edited the same articles, and used the same arguments. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345

Thanks for your message. Regarding Wikifan12345, he's repeatedly blanked both your comments and mine on his talk page, without responding to them, and he shows no sign of taking back any of his personal attacks. I think a block would be appropriate now - he's had fair warning. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have to take back any of his personal attacks; he just has to discontinue his personal attacks. Let's see if he continues his incivility after getting a legitimate warning.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think he does have to take them back or at least remove them; he shouldn't have made them in the first place, he's been asked to remove them and so far he's done absolutely nothing about it. Not only that, he has repeatedly deleted the warnings he's received. I don't think that can be taken as a sign of good faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any precedent requiring editors to strike their comments or remove them or else be blocked. In general, I would err on the safe side and hold off before doing anything extreme. His current and future behavior on the talkpages is most indicative of his intentions to act more civilly, not whether he removes comments that everyone saw and everyone still has access to. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your own post to Wikifan12345's talk page [31] is concerning. I've raised the matter of both you and Wikifan12345 on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement - please see WP:AE#User:Wikifan12345 and User:Brewcrewer. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello!

ChrisO blocked me after alerting me about an arbitration. Weird. Anyways, I've looked through his talkpage and you've asked for his opinion. Anyways, here is the link to the arb - Wikifan I hope you will look through the arbitration and offer an opinion. I've given a brief rationale for my defense and will answer any further questions as soon as I possibly can. Please please please look through everything before making a judgment, bandwagoning is a common quality in these kinds of articles so it's important to consider that. Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hymen

Do you have an opinion as to which of the two versions of the article Hymen are better? There were two versions before lockdown, one with merged references and formatted references, and the removal of a double negative. There was also changes to the headers and sentence that was unreferenced was moved. Care to take a peek and help decide? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on content, no. Did you review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Might want to file a request at WP:3O for a third opinion, or post an RfC. If you need help with syntax, let me know. --Elonka 00:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Elonka, I'm wondering if you could give me some advice. At the White people article we have an anon IP who is intent on edit warring. Over the last three days the IP has made the same deletion several times per day, while (narrowly) avoiding breaking 3rr.[32] The image is certainly contentious, but we have a reliable source to support it. This anon IP has made no attempt to engage in debate on the talk page. Is there any point in doing anything? I was thinking of asking for a semi-protection of the page, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Is it worth blocking the IP for a short time? Currently it's not a big problem, but I am wondering if the IP might be more inclined to engage on the talk page if they realised that this is not a free for all. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Cheers. Alun (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(Butting in) three reverts isn't an entitlement. Semi-protection is the wrong way to go if it's a single IP: Without looking at the specifics of this, I'd certainly place a block on any editor who deleted something six times while refusing to discuss it. It's still edit warring. *goes to look*

brenneman 12:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, well. I note that Wobble/Alun has made "no attempt to engage in debate on the {user's} talk page" before coming here. I'll do that now.
brenneman 12:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because I am unsure how to deal with this situation. I do know that it is often a good idea to seek the input of someone who is not involved, and I have come to trust Elonka's judgment on issues such as these. Take heed that I am asking for advice I am not asking for anyone to be blocked or for the page to be semi-protected. There is also an ongoing debate about this on the talk page in question. Alun (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a look, commented at the article talkpage, and left a note at the protecting admin's talkpage that protection should probably be lifted. I do also agree with Brenneman, that leaving a note on the IP's talkpage would have been a good course of action. These notes are good for multiple reasons: (1) They ensure that the communication is directly focused at the target editor (in case they're not sure whether or not you're talking to them); (2) They ensure that the message was seen, since on a busy article talkpage, it's rare that everyone reads everything, so messages are easy to miss; (3) They provide a convenient paper trail for administrators. Whenever I'm pondering a ban or block, I always always always check the target user's talkpage first, to ensure that they have received a recent warning. If there is a warning, but they're still being disruptive, it's easier to take immediate admin action. If there's no warning, then admins are usually (not always) obligated to warn first. The only times that I've taken an admin action without warning, it's been in extremely blatant cases, such as obvious vandalism or attacks. For everything else, I'll only give a warning shot across the bow. For this specific anon, if they're edit-warring without discussion, and they're ignoring talkpage warnings that they have to engage in discussion, that's the kind of thing I would block for, if they keep reverting. --Elonka 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Has been lifted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka. I understand that it would make sense for me to have left a message on the user's talk page, and I should have thought of doing this myself initially. Actually that's the sort of advice I came here for. BTW Brenneman your comment that I should have left a message on the user's talk page was sound, and I'm grateful for it, but I do think you could have expressed yourself in a less sarcastic way. OK so I was "being a dick" by not leaving a message, but hey, we all make mistakes, and you could have assumed that I was being a dick unwittingly. What you wrote really got my back up, you could have just said "why don't you leave a message on his talk page?" rather than quoting me back to myself. I was stupid, mea culpa, but you were unnecessarily aggressive. Alun (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ook? Abject an instaneous apologies. I had not even the slightest intention of being sarcastic. I've sat here for several minutes staring blankly at the screen, trying to think of another way to say "I'm sorry." I quote back as a manner of course in normal speech, but now that you've raised it I'll certainly be more cautious about doing so in the future. And, I must say, you handled getting your back up very well. (See, I almost put quotes around that. Bad habit.) You stated how you felt clearly and without stooping to my level.

brenneman 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Note

A personal attack is an attack, minus any diffs or evidence, against the character of the user. Evidence that this user is what I suggested he was is widespread; constant ANI and AN threads, blocks, unblocks for mentoring, blocks for failing to follow the conditions of his unblock, and then a page maintained where he complains about how all his blocks were unfounded and unfair showing he has learnt nothing. Ironholds (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The way you put it above, is fine. But calling someone "stubborn and irascible" is a personal attack. You're resorting to ad hominem, and attacking the person rather than the words. When accusing someone of making personal attacks, that is when it is most important to not issue personal attacks yourself. Otherwise you, as accuser, may end up tarring yourself with your own brush. When third-party observers who are familiar with neither the name "Ironholds" nor "PalestineRemembered" come to the discussion, they don't know the history, they just see both users attacking each other. Both editors, accuser and accusee, look equally bad, and both look like part of the problem. So to make your communication more effective, keep your behavior civil, and that makes any genuinely bad behavior, easier to spot. To put it another way: Decrease your own noise, to improve the signal-noise ratio. Make sense? --Elonka 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Historicist issues

Hi - I've removed the below comment in favor of asking it (as edited a bit) here, because I don't want to incite Historicist on his own talk page.

I have been subject to some far more extreme AGF / NPA violations in the 3+ month course of dealing with Historicist, which you must have missed in a spot check. They're mixed in there with the dozens and dozens of continuing incidents of mild incivility. Do you want me to find them? From my memory they include that I'm an anti-Israeli, Palestinian partisan apologist, that I am a problem editor, that I do not edit in good faith, that I am only here to spread propaganda, that the only reason I oppose him is that I am trying to whitewash articles and praise people I admire, that I cannot be trusted because I reneged on a consensus compromise. Those complaints might be good points but unduly confrontational, as you put it, if they were not made-up accusations. I'm a serious, legitimate editor on a very broad range of subjects who sticks his neck into areas that need some help. I've done nothing grossly wrong, and certainly nothing in bad faith, in my effort to deal with the disruption. I've seen very similar patterns of tendentiousness in various subject areas, be it the 2008 presidential elections, distance education in America, a school or a clothing company. On the Obama page we eventually rooted out a massive sock farm that was causing most of the trouble, but it took a few months and a lot of administrative process, during which I heard the exact same tit-for-tat accusations that Historicist is using.

Regarding the edit warring, four editors now (I think) have reverted this particular material as a BLP violation, which is one of two simultaneous issues going on with five articles where Historicist is active. Some consider it blatant, others not so blatant, and a few say it is no BLP violation. Does that make it okay to edit war into the article? The point is when something is legitimately challenged as a BLP violation, and doesn't even have consensus, an editor should not revert war to wedge it into the article while the jury is out. Per BLP we don't wait for discussion and a ruling on whether that's the right outcome. So where does that leave me if Historicist edit wars BLP violations, won't follow BRD, or accuses me of stuff again? Dispute resolution has been vexatious and unproductive. We have tried it, it does not work. Are you telling me no administrative help will be forthcoming? I have wasted many, many hours dealing with this pointlessness. One tendentious sloppy editor can make a revert in five seconds, and it can take hours and hours over the course of weeks if that is taken as a legitimate edit in need of discussion, debate, dispute resolution. That's fine the first time, or five, or twenty. But we have been dealing with the exact same stuff from this editor for his entire Wikipedia career, and it shows no sign of changing. It looks like the only option is to force the disputed inappropriate material out of the article when editors won't respect consensus. There are certainly far more editors willing to remove the material than those who will stick up for it or edit it back in. But I don't want to sink to that. It would be best if we had some process. Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got a good handle on the situation... Can you please provide a list of steps in dispute resolution that have been tried? Links to the noticeboard threads and RfCs? Also, has mediation been attempted yet? That'll give me some more reading material. Thanks, --Elonka 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this.[33] Thanks for the offer. I'm a bit of a technophobe but I'll see about setting up an IM account. As for RfCs, AN/I threads, and dispute resolution they were all about an earlier but related issue on which consensus was finally reached, after months, the matter of calling Rashid Khalidi a "former PLO Spokesman" sourced mostly to the Israel/Palestine partisan usual suspects. The outcome of that consensus (which got breached a couple times by the participants, leading to two earlier article protections) was to say that various sources said various contradictory things about Khalidi's past relationship with the PLO, which is at least a true observation. If I have time later today I can rummage through some things just to get a sense of it. But frankly, rather than dig up the past on disputes that are no longer active, I would love to give Historicist a completely clean slate, as long as it's understood that he has to behave and not cause trouble in the future or something will be done. The latest issue is only a few days old, attempting to paint Khalidi as perpetrating a "bogus" and "fabricated" quote about an Israeli military official based on a new flurly of character assassination editorials by the Israel/Palestine partisans, and plastering that accusation to five different articles. We can go down the same path again but it feels like Deja Vu all over again, same games, same edit wars, same accusations. But no, nobody has suggested dispute resolution at all and we have not had time to go through it. I really don't want to go through a 3-month process of dealing what should be a very simple process that takes an hour, tops, of finding or not finding consensus, and adequate sourcing. But I did try to initiate what is supposed to be the first step,[34] asking for someone to make a concrete proposal on the talk page so it can be discussed. So far, nothing after three days except someone saying why the earlier proposal was not a good type of criticism to put in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I will try to keep this brief. You should probably know that the two-month-long dispute last fall was over my attempt to enter the information on the Rashid Khalidi page that Khalidi worked with or for the PLO in Lebanon between 1976 and 1982. I was using sources that were decades old but that resurfaced at the end and just after the end of the Presidential election campaign on the very partisan blog of Martin Kramer. These were multiple news articles from the New York Times Washington Post Los Angeles Times in which multiple reporters in Lebanon in the 70's and 80's interviewed Khalidi citing him as a PLO spokesman or official, plus a Pacific Radio interview actually taped at PLO headquarters in Beirut. I also sourced to academic books, and recent confirmations by a Washington Post reporter and by the Los Angeles Times that Khalidi was indeed a PLO official when he was young. Late in the Presidential campaign when this became an issue, the evidence consisted of a lone 197? Thomas Friedman. (The was Khalidi PLO question has been out there for a while but Old news stories have only recently become word searchable, and perhaps the anti-Obama crowd was looking harder than anyone had previously.) Many Democratic pundits rushed to deny that he was a PLO spokesman. Only one pundit weighed in again after the election, to say that he had examined the newly recovered evidence and that Khalidi was indeed a PLO official. These are what Wikidemon calls inadequate sources. He had all the Democratic pundits denying that Khalidi used to be PLO in the heat of the campaign when the accusation was being used to smear Obama. but this argument was after the campaign ended. He fought for weeks, pretending that a political commentator outweighed contemporary articles by distinguished journalists writing from Beirut in the 70's, reporting me on boards like this one, threatening me with various dire sanctions, posting many messages a day for many weeks. At one point there was an attempt at some sort of arbitration process that never happened because everyone had to agree and Wikidemon would not agree. There were several compromise wordings, but they repeatedly failed. Editors would come, work for a few weeks, then give up in despair. In his favor, I will say that USER:Wikidemon is indefatigable. In my dis-praise (not, I believe, an English word) I admit that I have lost my temper with him more than once.Historicist (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It sounds like Wikidemon would be willing to wipe the slate clean and start fresh. Do you think this is possible, that you both give each another chance? --Elonka 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can drop any present complaint (which would mean, I hope, closing various outstanding processes as resolved), as long as there is no ongoing edit warring or incivility in the future. It does not really matter what Historicist thinks of me and I do not need any chances - the above account is wrong on every front but it serves no purpose to explain at length. A "fresh start" to me, recognizes that it is more efficient to look to, and hope for, good editing in the future rather than build cases based on the past. That works only if someone in a position to do something about it is willing to watch more closely, because if there is no change we don't get anywhere. There is no point asking for contrition or shame, but I am concerned that I see no recognition that any of the past edits were flawed, that edit warring is wrong, or that one has to accept policy and consensus even when it runs against them. I could go into considerable length, but a few key things are that (1) sources need to be cited for what they actually say, (2) editorials, partisan blogs, think tank websites, and op ed pieces are not good sources, particularly not for contentious claims made about living people; (3) criticism needs to be reliably sourced -- adding examples of well-known people badmouthing each other is not helpful unless there are reliable sources to establish context and significance of any dispute or criticism; and (4) sources are reliable not because the author has a bunch of degrees or prominence in some circles, but because they are written and published in a context that provides neutrality, editorial oversight, fact checking, accountability, etc. Finally, my role here is not as a partisan or subject expert, it is article patrol. I do not devote a major part of my Wikipedia effort to cleaning up these stub/start class articles about Israel-Palestine individuals. There are 500+ articles on my watch list, more than 100 of which I started. At any given time a few of them flare up and need attention so they don't go south. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that I'm not the only editor involved here. I think several others at the moment are rather concerned about this,[35] and I obviously do not speak for them. That proposal is pretty much a non-starter, so if Historicist does continue to edit in Israel/Palestine articles he will probably have to face the issue that the type of sourcing being provided just does not fly with some editors - primary sourcing criticism of living people to their partisan opponent. Some things just might not have reliable sources. For others, like a claim that the individual is controversial, there may be some bona fide reliable sources, but to be faithful of them would involve a neutral presentation.Wikidemon (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Content ban on deeceevoice

Hi. I don't know who you are or what you do, but you must have some juice. I wanted to thank you for your whatever role you played in getting the subject matter ban imposed on me by Tom (Tim?) Harrison overturned. Not only was it imposed, apparently, without regard to proper process, it was utterly groundless to begin with (which likely accounts for its unorthodox execution) and, I am firmly convinced, still would not have held up to scrutiny even had it been introduced employing different procedures.

So, thanks, Elonka. You did a good thing. :) deeceevoice (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, also just wanted to say that your involvement was appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, it's a refreshing change from the usual stuff on my talkpage.  :) --Elonka 18:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicole Walker

Your input is requested at the discussion page of Nicole Walker. Rm994 (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Genealogy recommendation

Dear Elonka, Thanks for recommending [[36]] It's an outstanding suggestion. I sincerely apreciate it, and I shall follow up on that when time permits. From your profile, you seem like an impressive Lady, and a very busy one too. It is interesting that you perceived emotions involved in the drafting of the info text with that photo I posted. I usually think of my writing as being overly technical or dull. I'm doing this as an hobby, and learning as I go. Right now my time is filled with obligations in Dallas and Nashville. My computer, hard drive info, and other office equipment in Nashville were all recently misappropriated, so the infomation I've attached to that photo has been added piece-meal to the photo from different locations in Texas and Tennessee. Again, I appreciate your kind note and input. Thank you, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Herman J. Mankiewicz

Can you peek at Herman J. Mankiewicz. He keeps inserting that his parents emmigrated from Poland, which is incorrect, and he keeps reverting back to a version with his personal unsourced essay as the lede. All sources says that his father was born in Berlin, and his father emigrated from Germany, not Poland. He is is on his forth or fifth reversion. At this point it is vandalism to keep adding incorrect information to the article and removing sourced information. I warned his user page for a 3rr. He has deleted over 6 references that I added to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Recurring Vandalism, Deletion, Misinformation of Jeff Halevy

Jeff Halevy is being repeatedly vandalized by "anonymous" users and fictitious accounts Veloscity and Borisvladim. Can you please lock the page or something? Thx.

96.246.71.120 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FURTHER the IP address 72.43.101.29, traced to John Sitaras, is vandalizing this page again. Can you please help?

chad_hermanson (talk)

Elonka...can you please take care of this guy?

User Hubschrauber729 has been vandalizing pages "Marko Marin", "Neven Subotic" and "Nikola Saric".

Can you please take care of this guy?

I put the "cities they were born in," "SR Bosnia and Herzegovina," "SFR Yugoslavia" but he keeps deleting the modified pages. Please ban him or tell him to stop vandalizing pages.

escalating problems

Israel Shahak Please take a look - the situation looks like it's getting quite ugly. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That article urgently needs administrative action against those who shovel in non-RS material, some of it really unpleasant. Paul Bogdanor (amongst other lots of other abuses) defends a man who gave false witness for Becher, a Nazi jew-killer, at the Nuremberg Trials. There is no way we should be using Bogdanor as a source in this article - and yet, attempts to point this out are met with threats, deletions on TalkPages and worthless appeals to non-relevant policy. We need the gross abuses dealt with first. PR^talk 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

In a spirit of raising the tone of the wiki, because I fee bad about it, and because it isn't true, I'm sorry for comparing you to the HR department on my talk page the other day. I was annoyed with some other people and chose to take it out on you, unfairly and inaccurately. I hope you can overlook it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I took no offense! But thanks anyway.  :) I would still very much like your input though on improving the AE process. I see that you've been participating at the AE RfC, which is good, but I'd still like a bit more. I've been pondering ideas for a proposal about an "AE training" system of some sort, but haven't quite got the wording worked out. Would you be interested in helping me brainstorm it at all? --Elonka 18:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)