User talk:Elonka/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

NJGW

Both yourself and NJGW seem to have stopped editing for a bit, but if you have a look at WP:AN the block looks questionable and there would be no harm in the goodwill gesture of an early unblock. If you can process that in the next hour or so it would be greatly appreciated. . dave souza, talk 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at the noticeboard. --Elonka 21:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking NJGW, I've commented at that noticeboard. . dave souza, talk 08:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for injunction

WP:AE#Request for injunction in Pseudoscience/Homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reducing disruption

The key to reducing disruption isn't to go back and right old wrongs or to deal a slew of warnings. Digging through old contributions doesn't "reduce disruption", it re-opens wounds. "Reducing disruption" isn't about righting great wrongs, it's about lowering the temperature.

Of course, if you really want to reduce disruption, it's important to approach the matter fairly. At present, you look like you're taking sides. I'm sure it isn't your intent, but your current course of action seems to be heating things up, not cooling them down. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well-said. In a way, though, it's a shame that the bleeding obvious needs to be explained. Raising old concerns is bad. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks by user logical premise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Logical_Premise/editorluv
Thought you might want to know about these personal attacks.
Messengerbot (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logical Premise/editorluv. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 21:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User Ronz

A number of people have already TRIED to resolve disputes with this user. He continually ignores ALL other editors and replaces tags without ever citing ANYTHING at all. He is VERY biased and we've attempted to send him to COI among other things, but requests are REPEATEDLY ignored and even deleted by the user himself!--FireandFlames17 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that Ronz has been disruptive (and I haven't reviewed the history of the Passage to Zarahemla article, so I can't say if he was or wasn't), there are ways to deal with this. For example, read Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive editors. But to be effective, your own behavior must be above reproach. This means no threats, no personal attacks, no WP:POINT violations. You have to be excruciatingly civil at all times. --Elonka 03:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I do admit I have gotten hotheaded, but that is due to frustration at the lack of neutrality. If you'll go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#FireandFlames17

You'll see that I posted this user's edits for just TODAY. He's accusing me of editing too many times myself...and he edits ten times more in one day than I do in a week. This user is adding tags to the articles that the other editors have said do no belong...and yet he's the only one that thinks they do. I have PERSONALLY rewritten the entire Passage to Zarahemla article myself (and it even matches the style of the Work and The Glory article (for the movie)) and yet...that article does not have tags (nor do any other movie articles written in the same style) but this user seems to have a personal vendetta against Mr. Heimerdinger for some reason. I am simply doing nothing other than to try and maintain some sort of consistency in the article, even contributing where I can, but it doesn't matter who seems to contribute, this user seems to have a problem with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireandFlames17 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger#Removal_of_Tags This guy has ALREADY started in on things again and the other user JUST put up his comments on this...can anything be done on this???--FireandFlames17 (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

#1: Breathe.  :)

#2: Remember There is no deadline.

Take the long view, tackle one thing at a time, and move slowly, so other Wikipedians can weigh in with comments. Remember that all articles on Wikipedia are in a state of constant flux, so if an article is in a "weird" state for a minute, or a week, or a month, it's often not that big of a deal, because it's going to keep changing anyway. The trick to managing the flow, is to ride with it. Bend like the willow, and be patient.  :) --Elonka 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Akademie_Verlag

Hi there. I was looking through the history and I noticed you tagged Akademie Verlag. Would you be interested in commenting here? Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Phenom

OK, I'm assuming you've read most of today's (and recent) comments on Phenom's page, the Current Days characters page, and my sockpuppet reports. I know I tend to go from friendly and helpful to businesslike and cold quicker than is probably preferred, and I was certainly relentless in this situation, but at some point I'd be interested if you thought I should've handled this differently. Feel free to not hold back any punches ;) — TAnthony^Talk 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I thought you handled yourself with remarkable restraint, especially considering the quantity of abuse that was being hurled your way! So good job on that.  :) I think we all went the extra mile to try and assume good faith and smooth out any misunderstandings with that editor, but sometimes there's just nothing that can be done. Looking back in hindsight on the entire situation, the main big thing that probably could have been done differently, is that as soon as there was a challenge to the redirect, we could have gone straight to the AfD(s). Other than that, I think everyone did as well as could probably be expected with that kind of situation. --Elonka 13:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for this comment; the attacks themselves don't faze me, I'm honestly more concerned about the general disruption and endless potential for unchecked IP sock vandalism here. I'm hoping he just loses interest. — TAnthony^Talk 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I have seen in the past you have made edits to the Wikipedia:Autoblock and i think something important needs to be added. You would note the page says "...The only circumstances in which a user may be associated with an IP address are certain policy violations detailed by the checkuser policy..." Yet you would know when an admin unblocks an autoblock like here, the IP of the user can be seen for everyone. Is this not correct? If so, i dont know why it does not get hidden. I think a note should be left on the page that if they dont want their IP to be revealed, to hold out until the autoblock expires. Whats your opinion? Thank You 220.239.56.131 (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we're actually in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:New admin school/Blocking#Change about how to update that page. I'll definitely take a look. --Elonka 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

I added this new attack to my outstanding IP sock case here, but I'm not sure what else can be done. Even blocking Phenom forever won't stop the IP disruptions. — TAnthony^Talk 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yazidi

Ok w/me, but watch the page, please. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. --Elonka 19:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

I am hereby requesting that you refrain from interacting with me. In the future, if you choose to place a warning on my page, especially one as specious as the one you just did here, don't. Please ask an uninvolved admin to relay any concerns you have, and I will either endeavor to listen or ignore depending on the validity of the requests. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I am an uninvolved administrator in the Pseudoscience topic area, so you cannot just tell me to avoid you. Though if I take any administrative actions which you find problematic, you are of course welcome to submit them for review to other admins, such as at WP:ANI or WP:AE. --Elonka 03:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll mark that down as an uncivil threat to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as you might note, I find your attacks on me highly uncivil. For the first time working on this project I feel emotionally harassed by someone--it is truly upsetting. Yet, I do things like Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design to make this project better, to deal with the obvious problems with the article. Yet you sponsor an editor who has done nothing, and when I mean nothing, I mean zippo, zero, nada, zilch, for this project, someone who has produced no articles, who has helped with no articles, who just sticks around policy matters and talk pages of contentious articles. You have no standing in my eyes with your continued support of one side of these issues. Your threats herein make it more difficult to trust your judgment, and make it very uncomfortable for my editing. I'm going to inform numerous individuals of this harassment. It's kind of scary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, as an uninvolved editor who has never even read the Intelligent design article, I have to note that your tone here is quite uncivil, and Elonka's is quite the opposite. I feel you are being defensive and taking her civil observations about your previous comments personally, even perhaps being "insulted" by someone challenging your knowledge of the article and its needs. That itself reflects an unhealthy personal interest. Your classification of her comment above as an "uncivil threat" or "harrassment" is absurd. I urge you to accept or ignore Elonka's comments in the spirit of good faith in which they were intended, and not escalate the situation further with volatile accusations and grandstanding. I don't think Elonka minds if you "report" her comments, I just think you may regret calling attention to your own reaction. — TAnthony^Talk 05:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

???

Did you write this?

Jehochman to point out that he has a strong COI on the Search engine optimization article, considering that he is an executive in an SEO firm, and has been involved in a lawsuit which names the Wikipedia article as part of the suit.

Lawsuit? Is that beyond a legal threat and into real legal warfare? Should this person stop editing Wikipedia entirely until the lawsuit is over? I know nothing about you or a lawsuit and am not taking sides on any matter, just inquiring.

Chergles (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The full comment is posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stripping pictures from FA. --Elonka 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not named in any lawsuit. Please refactor your comment, Elonka, so as not to confuse other editors. To be very precise, I have opposed somebody's attempt to register "SEO" as a trademark for seach engine optimization services. You can read all about it here and see for yourself how Wikipedia was cited in our filings. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hochman, you should not be working on the Search engine optimization article, ever. You have been showing appalling judgment here, and I've been trying to give you some space, but it's gone too far. It's clear that you specifically modified the article[1] using a forum post as a source, and then you used the Wikipedia article as a source in the trademark dispute (for example, paragraph 5).[2] I know there's a claim that the forum post is from an "industry expert", Danny Sullivan, but he is another associate of yours, and you've worked on his article too. Then Sullivan "invited"[3] Durova to write an article, "SEO Tips & Tricks from a Wikipedia Insider", where she even mentions you in the first paragraph. And I'm not even going to go into the conflict of interest regarding various financial arrangements. In short, neither you nor Durova should be going anywhere near any of the SEO articles, including Search engine optimization, Search engine marketing, Danny Sullivan, etc. It's a clear conflict of interest. If you want to work on other areas of Wikipedia, fine, but don't work on the SEO articles, and you should probably clearly state your potential COI when you participate on talkpages or noticeboard threads. Even better, just steer completely clear of all of them. --Elonka 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunin, I don't think we are going to clear things up here. You are under a lot of misconceptions about financial arrangements, and such. I hope in time that your anger with me will dissipate enough that we can have a civil conversation over tea. I have exchanged maybe fifty words with Danny Sullivan (technologist) over the years. He's extraordinarily busy and knows tons of people. I am hardly his associate. Basically every well-known, professional SEO has spoken at Danny's conferences and written for his publications. If that's your criteria for disqualification, then you are excluding all experts in the field. It would be like me saying you couldn't edit articles about cryptography or Alan Turing. Such a policy would be very bad for Wikipedia. Last week I was rushing out of a panel discussion (which Danny organized), and practically knocked over Jimmy Wales who took my seat for the next panel.[4] If you exclude me, you may as well exclude Jimmy too. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How about taking this up at WP:COIN and get opinions from editors that take much more time understanding what COI is about and how it should be dealt with? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in fairness and kindness but also ethics and analysis. If anyone wants me to try to resolve this issue, I will. Otherwise, I don't seek involvement in it. As said above, the original post were merely an inquiry, not an accusation. I have intentionally not researched the issue to insure impartiality in the future regarding this subject. Chergles (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your note to Jim62sch

For what it's worth, I think your comments to Jim62sch are dead on. I myself had earlier raised a similar concern on his talk page. Wikipedia would be a better place if we had more writers. Thanks, Madman (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, are you referring to this thread?[5] --Elonka 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes'm. Madman (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If it does turn out that further action is needed, then it'll be helpful to have the additional diffs. Hopefully though, Jim will simply take the concerns onboard, and try to modify his editing style a bit. In which case no further action will be necessary! --Elonka 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached?

Over at Muhammad al_Durrah you suggested a name change. A month later, I did a quick count of the views expressed and read it as being "5-0 support, 1 neutral". (I was probably wrong, it's probably only 2 in favour, 3 "likely", one neutral and one unknown). The move has been reverted - is it worth taking it to "Request Move"? (This last is not actually my idea - but I've come to you because I thought you'd be more au fait with all the issues).

Editor	Change Title to "Muhammad al-Durrah affair"?	Comments made
User:Elonka	Likely	... feel free to discuss it here. If other editors agree, we can move the page. But I'd like to ensure that there's a consensus first. 17:36, 18 September 2008
User:PalestineRemembered	Yes	Support re-name 18:30, 18 September 2008
User:6SJ7	Likely	At least at first glance, adding "affair" would seem to be appropriate ... I will reserve my actual opinion pending further discussion. 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
User:IronDuke	Neutral	I could go either way as well, though I do think we have articles on people esentially famous for only one thing, eg, Leo Frank. 19:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Liftarn	Unknown	I wouls support splitting out the conspiracy theories to a separate article and let this article deal with the facts. //
User:Tarc	Yes	Call it the Muhammad al-Durrah affair 16:35, 19 September 2008
User:Jaakobou	Likely	I think I tend to agree about the "affair" spirit for writing the article, but I'm not so certain the move is necessary. 04:48, 22 September 2008

PR^talk 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In a universe of six people (excluding Elonka) out of the thousands of Wikipedia editors, there does not seem to be any strong objection to renaming the article to add the word "affair." Without getting into whether that really adds up to a "consensus", the fact is that on Wikipedia it is probably enough to justify renaming the article. Such renamings sometimes prompt greater attention from those less involved or previously uninvolved, so if someone comes along who wants to move it back or elsewhere, I think it needs to be recognized that there was really no solid consensus here either way. The real issue on the article's talk page seemed to be whether, as part of this renaming, there should be some sort of "split" or "fork" of the article, so I think it must be made clear that there are definite objections to that proposal. I would also strongly suggest that if anybody gets the idea of reworking the first sentence (and elsewhere in the intro) to match the new title, that any changes should be proposed and discussed on the talk page first. I can see all kinds of potential issues with that, and with a 0RR in place (if it still is), it is important that nobody unilaterally change the first sentence. 6SJ7 (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to my talk page

Hi Elonka, a user named User:Phenomenon8980 has been repeatedly blanking my talk page. I have left several messages on his/her talk page concerning talk page guidelines. He/She is angry because I redirected a character page Melanie Layton, back to Days of Our Lives because she does not meet WP:NOTE. I told the user I had no personal grievances against him/her, but I am just trying to follow rules. I have been civil, and not posted any threatening messages. This user just continues to blank my page though. Please advise. If you are the wrong person to contact, please tell me who is. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Bish got it. Though, I see you were edit-warring with Phenomenon at the Melanie Layton article. Instead of just going back and forth like that, a better option is to file a quick AfD. Also, please read WP:BITE and WP:VANDAL#NOT... Phen looks like s/he may have the makings of a good editor who could be really helpful at the Soaps Project, so it's better to try and nurture potential talent, instead of just tussling and accusing them of vandalism. Remember, we need all the good help we can get!  :) --Elonka 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I do need your help filling out a request for deletion. I would also ask that you again warn Phenonmenon8980 to stop harrassing me. I have been nothing but civil to him her, and am not trying to have a conflict. I am just trying to make this site reliable, while he/she continues the verbal assault. Thank you so much for all your help in this matter. Rm994 (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the page, tagged it as needing references, and posted a note at the talkpage about a possible way to handle it. Hopefully we can have a civil discussion on how to proceed. If this doesn't work, we can always go to an AfD. --Elonka 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help with this. I don't know what s/he is actually talking about, as my last post was yesterday. It seems to me that this user simply does not understand the rules regarding talk page etiquette, civility, or the rules of articles. My only intention was to help s/he understand the rules. I believe I was civil enough. I have made my contribution to the Melanie Layton talk page, and that is where it will end. I will not engage in any more debates with him/her. 3 editors have now suggested that it be merged with minor characters. It was never my intention to anger this user, simply just to explain the rules. Again...I REALLY appreciate all your help. Rm994 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I redirected the Melanie Layton article. Thanks again for your help. Rm994 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. If it gets reverted again, take it to AfD, or ping me and I'll file it. --Elonka 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Melanie Layton was reverted back, so how should we proceed? Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've initiated an AfD. — TAnthony^Talk 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Email from User:HabsMTL to User: Phenomenon8980. (email removed)

I am writing on behalf of Phenomenon8980. He has not contacted User: RM994 for any reason since they've had their conflict. Phenomenon8980 is highly upset and plans to now continue harrassing both users if he is not apologized to. It is clear that noone is interested in letting Phenomenon 8980 take the high road. 131.247.244.190 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please forward the email to me: elonka@aol.com --Elonka 16:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony keeps sending me sockpuppet violations. I don't know what this is and I havent contacted him at all for any reason for about a week. I have been blocked. He continues to have some personal vendetta against me eventhough he was already successful in having all my articles that I created deleted. If he doesnt stop harrasing me I will call the police. Phenomenon8980 (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note my comment here, posted before I read this comment on your talk page. — TAnthony^Talk 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV

Thank you for your fair oversight as usual, Elonka. I'll stay clear of 3RR; you have my word. I'll also be sure to take a look at Michele Renouf's article. Best, Causteau (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please advise

Is this kind of threat an invitation for an indefinite block? I am honestly amazed that this editor persists with this. — TAnthony^Talk 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked all of this from my talk page, but wanted to make sure you saw this last threat before the block. Just so you know, should I receive any more IP vandalism, I don't intend to formally attribute it to Phenom as a gesture of good faith. I believe you can see that for the most part I have been reactionary in this situation and not goaded Phenom (not that that's an excuse for his behavior anyway). Hopefully that will be the end of it. — TAnthony^Talk 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I persist with this because you keep harrasing me. I have been blocked for a week and I sign on for the first time and its a sockpuppet violation from you. It's like you just can't let it go. That's a price you will have to pay then. Keep it up! Phenomenon8980 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Phenom also keeps restoring the thread you asked me to archive. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 19:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And I may also point out that he just violated 3RR by doing it a third time — TAnthony^Talk 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Has everyone read WP:BAIT recently? :) --Elonka 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That article describes TAnthony to a tee. It's funny because he is not even the original person who I had an issue with. I resolved that conflict a long time ago. It' TAnthony's incessant abuse of whatever power he has to make other editor's experience on here miserable. I say he should be the one blocked for goading me into this conflict. And yet he's surprised that I persist? Phenomenon8980 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Phenomenon8980, I've been trying really hard to be patient, but I'm about run dry at this point. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to play these kinds of games. If you'd like to stick around and help out with writing articles, we'd love to have the help. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're just going to be asked to leave. --Elonka 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. Phenomenon8980 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler and beyond

Though I participated in the discussion on tense at Pauline Fowler, I know you were an active part of the FA nom. In that article, the character's storylines are pretty much presented from a real-world perspective in the context their coverage in external sources, with the more in-universe coverage filling it out. That is obviously the ideal approach, but would you say this was a natural choice based on the amount of coverage available on this particular character, or a direct result of suggestions from peer review/article class noms? I'm working on an article with a significant amount of source material and am going in this same direction, but I'm wondering in general if, for characters of slightly less notability, a reasonably-sized section that is essentially only plot summary would hinder the article (assuming there are other sourced sections asserting notability, etc. An example which comes to mind immediately is Alexis Colby in its current state. The article definitely needs work (and of course there are probably plenty of sources to expand the article a la Pauline), but pretending for a moment that is not the case, would the article's current format work? That is, a real-world-based section and a plot section, like you would find for an article about a novel. Or, do you think it would be necessary to weave the two, as in Pauline? I'm not sure how many character articles have made it to FA status. — TAnthony^Talk 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, only one soap character article has ever made it to FA, and that's Pauline Fowler. There are other fictional characters that have made it, and you can find them at WP:FA, for example, in the media section we've got Padmé Amidala, Jack Sparrow, Troy McClure, Bernard Quatermass, Nikki and Paulo, and Khan Noonien Singh, though I seem to remember seeing that one go by recently on ANI, as being in the middle of a dispute of some sort. Last I checked, the whole Manual of Style for fictional topics (not to mention guidelines for notability) were still subject to considerable debate, but you can check WP:FICTION and WP:MOSFICT for the latest. Anyway, you can look at character articles which successfully navigated their way through the FA political hoops, to see if you can glean tips for the Alexis Colby article. I'll add it to my watchlist as well, and see if I can offer any assistance. --Elonka 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the examples, it does seem like the "Appearances" sections in these articles are strictly plot, so that wouldn't be an issue for other articles. I'm actually working on Steven Carrington and haven't gotten into the plot section as yet. There is a lot of press coverage about the character out there because of the whole groundbreaking gay thing ;) — TAnthony^Talk 23:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Search engine optimization article

Elonka, for what it's worth, I watch the SEO article pretty closely and I don't think either Durova or Jehochman have abused it or tried to edit it to their advantage. As for the lawsuit, Jehochman, as well as other SEOs, are suing to stop the U.S. Trademark Office's egregiously absurd grant of a trademark on the letters "SEO" to one of their competitors (who has been indefinitely blocked here.)

I'm not in the SEO business myself; mostly I watch that article because it's a wonderful honeypot for drawing out spammers.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS, I thought your message for Jim62sch was very tactful. I'm sorry he took it wrong.

Thanks, I'm glad that uninvolved folks are keeping an eye on it. And I'm not disagreeing with you about the trademark dispute. Where I have trouble though, is the idea that a Wikipedia editor, an administrator even, edited a Wikipedia article, and then cited the bits of the article that he'd edited, when he was involved in a legal battle, as though the article represented "common knowledge". And further, that while the suit was active, he continued to edit that article, and didn't see anything wrong with it. I think that shows appalling judgment. It's also frustrating to me, because if the situation were reversed (that I had edited an article about the game industry, then cited the bits of the WP article in court documents, and then I continued to edit industry articles on Wikipedia, even while I was involved in a lawsuit which was relying on those articles), well, not that I would ever do such a thing, but if by some chance I did, I think all hell would rain down on my talkpage. So there seems to be a bit of a double standard going on. I still feel strongly that it's a simple matter: If an editor is involved in any kind of a legal action which is using Wikipedia articles as source documents, said editor should not be editing those articles, as that's a pretty clear COI. --Elonka 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. And, yes, all hell would rain down on you, I'm afraid; fair or not, some of us are "Velcro" while there are others that seem to be "Teflon".

I guess I saw that particular litigation as so absurd that in my mind, it "didn't count". Kind of like a flat earth lawsuit.

Bottom line -- you're right and we shouldn't have a double standard, even if in some eyes such as mine, there's not a "real" problem. Appearances matter for admins, since we set an example for others. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of this endless conflict. I have asked Newyorkbrad to mediate.[6] Will you accept his opinion as impartial? Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you were not aware...

Since you stopped posting to my talk, but things have developed further, I figured I ought to drop you a note that there have been further discussions on AN/I. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Mellars

Hiya, Elonka. Thanks for joining me in editing Paul Mellars. I managed to find his date of birth on the archives of the British Academy. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ah, you're welcome, but I won't be sticking around. That was just some drive-by categorizing, as I do to many other articles that I run across via Special:Random. Have fun with it though. --Elonka 00:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

Hey. I have (FINALLY) closed the RfC, and posted my conclusion inside it. Hopefully it's satisfactory, it was really hard to close this. Wizardman 04:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope!

Sorry, just my ignorance. --Enzuru 06:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, the guy who called me an ismaili vandal in the history constantly follows me (he always gets new IPs) and reverts many edits I make, so, I automatically revert them back. --Enzuru 06:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that guy who follows Enzuru around also follows me. He also calls me ismaili vandal or ismaili vandal's gf, depending if he notices who he's vandalising. His most recent reverts are so automated that he actually reverted something helpfully unintentionally. He's had 5 IPs blocked for log-in accounts only in the last 2 days alone... what a pain he is. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 06:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Is there a list of the IPs anywhere? Has anyone filed a Suspected SockPuppet or Request for CheckUser report? --Elonka 06:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I filed a partial one based on the most recent ones. If you can search edit summaries for "ismaili vandal", you'll get a motherload. Lessee, the one I filed is... [[7]]. But I didn't bother to gather them all. Can you search by edit names? I need to go to bed, but it's basically edits to Shia Islam, Template:Shi'a Islam, Template:Fatimah, Template:Ismaili, and a few others. Template:Twelver Shi'a as well. Okay, so a whole range of Shi'a topics, but those are the most prolific. Some of the 12 Imams were edit-spams, too, as I recall. *sigh* Yeah, so is there any way to summon up "Ismaili vandal"? He used a lot of other rude names (faggot dyke tranny, for one) but those are most reliable. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 06:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the report. As you find other IPs/accounts, they can be added to that page. For now, go ahead and get some sleep.  :) --Elonka 07:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Halp User:84.255.151.196... grr. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Now he's using User:129.250.211.12, an old reliable one for him.

Whoops now on User:129.250.211.10, another old one. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, Elonka. Not to keep lengthening the everlasting thread on Lar's page, I feel I should reply here that you're quite right: Rm994 didn't post to ANI. It was most likely at your page that I saw the user's call for help against an aggressive editor who kept blanking their page. Not that I was consciously watching your page, but I had lazily let it remain on my watchlist after I'd posted there before. ("Monitor" your page, as you call it, is not something I've ever done. Seriously, what for?) I'm sorry I misspoke about it. I can't remember, or even imagine, why I went look up that particular post on your page when it appeared on my watchlist—it's downright odd, to my sense, since it certainly didn't have a striking edit summary (it had none) or anything, and to the best of my knowledge I'd never heard of Rm994. Anyway, I was obviously mixed up when I wrote about it on Lar's page, and I apologize for my error. When something that long ago was in question, I should have checked before saying anything at all, however clearly I thought I remembered it, and I appreciate your setting me right. That said, I still stand by my other remarks on Lar's page, I'm afraid. As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't the one who "jumped into the middle of a discussion", you were (which was fine). You offered rather superior and as I thought them (and, I'm afraid, still think them) priggish references to well-known policies to Risker and myself, who are pretty experienced admins (which was less fine, in my opinion). Anyway, I'm very sorry I misremembered about where I saw Rm994's sad plaint. You'll be pleased to hear that I've finally remembered to "unwatch" your page. I do try to keep my watchlist trimmed down to pages I'm actually interested in, as it's much more effective that way. But it's a bit of an eternal struggle between chaos and laziness. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Returning Vandal

Hi, Ok, I will post elsewhere from now. But the new incarnation of the same vandal is User talk:Maryland's isn't Disneyland and he is still vandalizing several user pages. Please look at his edit history. I have started writing a paper about him: User:History2007/Content protection. Everytime he vandalizes, I write more on that article.... Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's not vandalizing anymore. He was blocked on October 19, indefinitely.[8] You won't be seeing that account again. If you do see him pop up on any different accounts, please let me or another administrator know, as quickly as possible. WP:ANI is a good place to post to get rapid attention. --Elonka 20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - yes he is blocked. I was looking on his talk page, not user page. But he will be back. The poor fellow has some sort of obsessive psych problem that needs professional help. I think he was also EurovisionMan and was vandalizing other topics and was blocked. Also vandalizes Lithuanian Wikipedia, and has a chess obsession too I hear. Anyway, Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Will keep an eye out. BTW, as a word of advice, please be careful about how you refer to editors. Even when dealing with vandals, it's not a good idea to make pronouncements about their presumed mental state. It's fine to point out the actions of an account, but for best results, try to avoid expressing opinions about the person behind the keyboard. WP:NPA and WP:ATP are also worth reading. --Elonka 21:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the academic papers link you provided was interesting - I had no idea it was there. I will read some of those and then work more on the issue of consistency between Rivers in Europe vs Rivers in Germany type feature that I was thinking about. That is a feature I would really like to see in Wikipedia as well, and would make image searches much more flexible as well. So some good came out of that page block after all! Cheers History2007 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Vanish

Hiya, Elonka.

Please could you make my account vanish. I no longer wish to contribute to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first read WP:VANISH. Then any of your userpages which you wish deleted, tag with {{db-user}}. Your account name can also be changed, to something different like "Vanish1234" if you want. You'd file a request for that at WP:RENAME. --Elonka 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, DIY? Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

o noes

this comment [9] is in no way a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. please read over them policies to better familiarize yourself wit' 'em. by the way, "trolling" really isn't the word for that either, as at that point I was actually taking the effort to try and be civil with people who were obviously just looking to get me banned for disagreeing with them from the start. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV (2)

It seems that there is POV pushing in opposite directions going on at this article. You responded to the actions of one side in response to WP:AN#Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources, while I (with the typical bias of a German) was more intrigued by the less obvious actions of the other side. Are you watching the article? It would be nice to know there is an experienced admin around. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV and Michele Renouf? Yes, watching 'em both, though more eyes are always helpful. There appears to be some disagreement about the BLP issues at the Renouf article. I'm not familiar with the sources, but am trying to come up to speed. --Elonka 01:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need your input at WP:ANI#User Causteau and The Jerusalem Post.

It seems that User:Causteau thinks I am part of a conspiracy (see User talk:Sina111#Press TV for the details). User:RCS seems to have similarly misguided ideas (although not to the same degree) about Causteau. I think Causteau could do with an explanation, from a trusted admin, of how WP:AGF can be used as an effective tool against real and imagined conspiracies. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV again

Hi Elonka. The Press TV situation I told you about earlier has since gotten out of hand. Two of its prime "participants" (though I'm not sure if that's the word) have reported me personally and not my edits over at AN/I. What's most amusing is that one of them has also brought up the conflicts from months ago that I was involved in and which you moderated over at the Al-Azhar University page and with Andrew at E1b1b as an attempt to gain some sort of leverage. I've laid out the situation in its entirety here, with some important links (such as this discussion I had with another administrator earlier) that I think you should read first. Please drop by and let folks know what really happened from someone who is actually in a position to have all the facts. Best, Causteau (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance

I just got another personal attack via IP here; I'm not sure if I am supposed to report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or if there's a more specific place? I suppose it's classified as vandalism, right? Thx. — TAnthony^Talk 01:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. And I'm contacting folks off-wiki to see if there's further action that can be taken. Enough is enough. --Elonka 01:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you'd like to followup, it's looking like the (exposed) IPs are coming from Florida, so you could contact the ISPs and file a complaint. Many ISPs, if you can show them that someone is using their system to make these kinds of attacks, will yank the account access. To see the ISP, go to the anons' talkpages, and click on the "WHOIS" link at the bottom. Then you can go to those ISP pages, and look for a "report abuse" or "contact us" link. These might be places to start:[10][11] Give them diffs to the worst of the attacks. If this guy is a student at the University of Florida, it might even get him kicked out of the school. --Elonka 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, for the IP block, advice and (I assume) the CheckUser report ... I've submitted diffs to the ISP. The U of S Florida IPs were used for the suspected sockpuppet reverts and such, not really report-worthy. — TAnthony^Talk 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If they want further information, the CheckUsers can probably provide additional IP/computer information to law enforcement, though it would probably need to go through the Wikimedia legal counsel, Mike Godwin. Keep me posted if you have any other questions! --Elonka 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Private

I do not wish the link to be clickable for obvious reasons. Kindly respect my wishes. You may give another explanation below which does not contain the link directly. Please try to act a little more thoughtfully in future. Mathsci (talk)

Mathsci, frankly this is getting a bit silly. You posted the link, the editor didn't know what to do with it and Elonka assisted him only after he asked her to do so. If you do not want the link to be public, don't post it - whether or not its clickable makes little to no difference. Shell ^babelfish 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, your being unhelpful, please stop. You have made false statements in the past in a failed attempt trying to support Elonka's position. QuackGuru 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you have any problems with my past or current comments regarding yourself or your behavior, I would be happy to discuss the situation with you or engage in dispute resolution. Please do not insert these issues into other topics. Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shell's comment above (of 20:49, 21 October 2008). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys has not replied yet, as far as I am aware, so Shell's message baffles me. Meanwhile my letter has been reposted slightly differently on mathsci.free.fr. Elonka has been told where the new location is (a not very subtle change with mervyn-emrys changed to Mervyn-Emrys) and has my blessing to pass the message on if as it seems she recorded it. If this does not work I will post detailed instructions about the new location of the message in a non-clickable form on Mervyn's talk page. Perhaps people could be more patient. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The new message is posted there now. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look up under "Hi Elonka", Mervyn Emrys's most recent request of Elonka was that she assist him in understanding your message. Sometimes its not patience, but a little good faith and investigation that helps understand a situation ;) Shell ^babelfish 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen that - many apologies. The main thing is that my message gets read. I meant everything I wrote and sincerely hope that this will clear the air and help Mervyn feel at ease on wikipedia. Again sorry about the crossed wires. I will not post again during oyster night in my cyber-bistro :) Best wishes, Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you tease with the oysters - I may just have to go acquire some seafood. I do hope the post helps clear the air; best of luck. Shell ^babelfish 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Merci et bon appétit ! Mathsci (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Abu Rayhan Biruni

The page Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī violates the Wikipedia naming convention (use of macrons...) but I can't move it to Abu Rayhan Biruni because I am not an administrator. I've dropped a {{Db-move}} on the latter, but I don't know how long it'll take to get someone's attention so I figured I'd drop you a note. <3 ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 03:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just start a thread at the talkpage, proposing the move. If no one disagrees after a few days, I can get it moved for you. Otherwise, you may wish to handle it via WP:RM. --Elonka 04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Return of Vandal & Rollback

Hi, User:Pionier came back, this time with 2 Ids: User:Pioneer sets a fire and User:Pioneer tells the truth. See examples of his work today on Mother of God. Also vandalized my user page again. Can you please grant me Rollback rights so I can just roll him back. That may be one way to slow him down. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Jayron got it. If you have any other trouble though, please don't hesitate to let us know! --Elonka 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I looked at Rollback and it seems to need a script for a massive rollback of a vandal's edits. What scripting language and/or system is that written in. I guess I need to read more, but is there a way to do 10 rollbacks at once? Is there an easy linkto that explanation page? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it's usually not that complicated, you just click the rollback link, and it removes all of the edits that a vandal has made on an article, back to the previous person's edit. See WP:ROLLBACK. --Elonka 04:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if it can be done on multiple articles, and within a given date range for an IP, etc. Cheers History2007 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look into some of the vandal-fighting tools. See the Tools section at WP:CUV. I've heard good things about Huggle though haven't used it myself. --Elonka 07:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will read those. History2007 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Utto

Hello Elonka! I have a question about a small detail in Utto (disambiguation). Could you be so kind to tell me, why the phrase Utto is a German given name dropped out in your edit from 21 October? Do you think it can be considered self-explanatory from the following examples, or was there another reason? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was simply doing a rapid cleanup, as I go through Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. The "may refer to" is the typical opening for disambiguation pages, but looking at what's there, it's probably fine to add the "German given name" part back in. Generally we wouldn't put that in the introductory line unless the first line were a link to a name page. But since it's an unlinked word, we don't. For more details, see WP:MOSDAB, which is our Manual of Style for those pages. It's just a guideline though, so editors are free to choose what they think works best for a particular situation, even if it doesn't conform exactly. :) If you think the page would be better with that wording, feel free to tweak.  :) --Elonka 16:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:-) I put the given name back in, somehow I feel more comfortable with it (and WP:MOSDAB led me to Elvis (disambiguation) - Utto seems a bit similar on a much smaller scale). Daranios (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Dear Elonka, I added a my opinion to the section on using names in Hungarian and Slovak articles. Trisw (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagz' talk page

You have my word that I will not be posting to it directly, but I would like to reserve the right to bring to the attention of admins postings that violate Wiki policies, although as I said, I won't edit directly on that page anymore. Good enough?--Ramdrake (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, yes.  :) Thanks, Elonka 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I was about a second away from just protecting Jagz' talk page and being done with it, when I first saw his comments there - he's wasted more than enough editorial time and energy. He's indefinitely blocked and got caught using a sock to evade his block and carry on his old grudges, after first denying it all. His unblock request has apparently been declined by ArbCom. He doesn't own his userpage - being allowed to edit there is a courtesy should he wish to give some indication he wants to edit constructively. Using his talkpage to attack another editor is an abuse. I haven't protected it because you've asked him to stand down and I'll wait to see if he does, but any further abuse of his talkpage and I think we've given him 10x more than enough rope. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that he's written an FA in the past, I'd probably agree with you. And I know that you and I have very different perceptions of the situation, but I still have a few dregs left in my Barrel o' Good Faith, that he's a good editor who just got tipped over the edge by attacks from all sides. As I've scanned through the history at Talk:Race and intelligence, over and over again I see what appear to be good faith comments by Jagz, which were responded to over and over by people calling him a troll. I lost track of the number of times that I saw Slrubenstein say DNFTT in response to anything that Jagz posted. Frankly, if I were trying to participate in discussions at a controversial article, and I repeatedly had people referring to me as a troll, I'd probably get testy too. For example, try to read this thread with a different perspective.[12] Don't start with, "Oh, there's Jagz again", try and mentally remove his name and insert someone else's that you respect (SandyGeorgia?). What I see is someone who kept trying to make good edits, then kept being attacked as a troll, and then when he responded even once with incivility, the attacks just increased. And then when he got indef blocked for "trolling", that pushed him further over the edge, and he finally started acting in the way that everyone was expecting him to act (which he saw as making a point, and they saw as just proving their own point). So I'd really like to see if we could just get everyone to go back to their corners and stop poking each other with pitchforks, and we might be able to salvage some good editors out of this? --Elonka 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't say that he "wrote a featured article". He was one of a number of contributors to an FA back in 2005, for which he deserves credit, and if he showed the slightest indication of doing anything similarly constructive now or in the future, I'd be willing to cut him more slack.

I don't see a victimized "good editor" who was simply provoked by "attacks from all sides", but I think we've agreed to disagree there so I won't belabor it. I will say that I see an editor determinedly promoting an agenda in violation of WP:NPOV etc, while generally remaining superficially civil. The success of this approach suggests to me an unfortunate primacy of civility over the content policies which guide the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. Good content work should not excuse incivility, but it's equally or even more problematic to allow civility to excuse poor or biased content.

At the moment, Jagz is banned (meaning he shouldn't really be contributing even on his own talk page), and he was using the slack he was given there to, as you said, poke people with a pitchfork. He's well aware of the avenues for appealing his ban, and I believe he's actively explored them. He can continue to do so, but he doesn't need access to his talk page to do that. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, was there a banning discussion that I missed? Could you please provide a link? --Elonka 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going by the tags on his userpage, which was perhaps a mistake. Generally, someone who's been indefinitely blocked, been caught socking, had 3 unblock requests declined, and had an ArbCom appeal declined is more or less "banned" ("users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community", from WP:BAN). On the other hand, whether banned or simply indefinitely blocked, the substance of my view is essentially unchanged. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's better to just call it an indef block for now, rather than a ban. To be honest, my gut feeling is that he's already running another account to evade the block, which is probably why his answers are so evasive, and also is probably why he seems in no particular hurry to get the Jagz account unblocked. Then again, if he is running another account, it's working on other articles, so we'd get the encyclopedia work out of him one way or the other, whether Jagz is blocked or unblocked. Not that I'd support him evading the block in any way... If another sock were discovered, I'd support an immediate indef block. Also, as a sort of side note about the inconsistencies of wiki culture, I find it fascinating that Jagz, with a long history of contributions, is indef blocked at this point, and there's a call to have his talkpage protected so he just goes away entirely. Whereas Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs), which appears to be very much a tendentious single purpose account, is continuing to waste the time of multiple administrators. Ah well, it's the wiki-way, our editors and admins spend time where they want to, even if it's not the most efficient use of their particular efforts! --Elonka 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A most intriguing and cogent comment (about wasting time), I must say. Oddly, sometimes when one does root cause analysis though, one finds that the main timewasting in problematic editor situations is not directly chargeable to the editor themselves, but to the actions of others. Just food for thought. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka,I may be totally wrong, but along those lines, I've just noticed a user account by the name of User:Jagzilla. This could be absolutely no more than mere coincidence -- seems to be a sleeper account -- but the similitude in names was awkward... FYI Never mind it seems to have disappeared since yesterday; either that or somebody put something funny in my drinking water. ;)--Ramdrake (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a real account, but I don't think it's related... It just popped up to create a page in 2007, which page was deleted in 2008, and I haven't seen any other activity. If you do find any other suspicious accounts though, do bring them up! I have very little patience for block evasion. --Elonka 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that KS should be asked to move on, as this is at least theoretically an encyclopedia rather than a battleground. I was actually ready to simply take care of it, in response to a post I saw at WP:BLP/N, when I noticed that multiple other admins were already involved. I left a note for Lar on his talk page about it. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Elonka's use of the phrase "his answers are so evasive" is spot-on. This is one of the main points that has been made about Jagz's contributions to talk pages. Different words were used to describe "evasiveness". Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected User Talk:Jagz. He's consistently abused his talk page - whether he's banned or merely an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer, his talk page is not a blog where he can continue to pursue old grudges (e.g. [13]). If he wishes to be unblocked, he can carry on correspondence with you, with unblock-en-l, or with ArbCom via email. All of his activity since his block, though, has been completely unproductive and antagonistic. Even when he created a block-evading sock, he didn't use it to improve the encyclopedia, but to jump back in to his old grudges, battles, and obsessions. I'm happy to submit this action to WP:AN/I for review if you feel it is in error. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your perception, and would ask you to unprotect the page. But please, let's not make this another ANI dramafest. Can we figure out a compromise here? --Elonka 16:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's centralize this - since you've commented in more detail on my talk page, we can discuss it there. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If Elonka wants to continue having a conversation with an indef-blocked editor then Elonka could continue the conversation by email. Is this about a conversation that Elonka wants to continue or is this much bigger? It seems Elonka may want to unblock Jayz. Maybe, that is what this is really about. QuackGuru 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with unprotecting the talk page because of comments like this. QuackGuru 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That comment is from six months ago, and even so, I'm not seeing anything there that violates any Wikipedia policies. To go into a bit more detail about my philosophy here: We have lots of editors who have lots of different points of view.[14][15] Some people think their view is "real", and therefore that people with different views are "wrong". Some people even think that anyone with a wrong view should be blocked from Wikipedia, just for thinking about things the "wrong" way. But that's not how our policies work. Wikipedia articles are not intended to decide disputes, they are supposed to describe disputes. And it's not about what individual editors think, it's about what the reliable sources say. If there are reliable sources describing a point of view, even if I might find that point of view abhorrent, my job as an administrator is to ensure that editors are allowed to create an article which neutrally describes a topic, as well as any notable controversies or points of view around that topic. If an editor is presenting a point of view which is seriously out of step with reality, then they probably won't be able to pull up many reliable sources which describe that view. If they do have sources, then maybe our Wikipedia article needs to describe that view. Or, if the view is still completely wacky, then we file an RfC, we get other editors' opinions into the mix. If uninvolved voices from the Wikipedia community agree, "This view is whacked, it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article," then we have consensus, and the view comes out of the article. If a fringe-supporting editor continues to try and insert the view after that, then not only can the view be removed per consensus, but the editor will eventually be removed from Wikipedia for tendentious editing in violation of consensus. But there has to be a consensus. It's not enough for editor A to say, "I know what the consensus is, and editor B needs to be blocked." If challenged, editor A needs to be willing to follow steps in dispute resolution, file an article RfC, and get those opinions from other editors to show that there really is a consensus. As a personal example, I'd point to the Kaaba article. It's about one of the most sacred buildings in the Islamic faith. On that article, an editor placed an image which is considered blasphemous by hundreds of thousands of Muslims.[16] I've tried removing the image, but people replace it, citing WP:CENSOR. I've engaged in talkpage discussions, trying to prove that there was a consensus to remove the image.[17] But I failed, because each time I tried, the general consensus of Wikipedia editors is that the image should stay on the article, since "Wikipedia isn't censored". Each time I go to that article, I see that image, and I know it's offensive. And the article regularly shows up on my watchlist, sometimes multiple times per day, as new editors try to remove that image, and other people keep putting the image back "per talkpage consensus". I'm not a Muslim, but I've done enough research on Islam that I understand why many Muslims feel that the image is offensive. I don't think the image needs to be deleted outright, but I think that there are better articles where it could be included, instead of putting it smack dab on as important an article as Kaaba, where the image isn't really needed. Anyway, it's a regular reminder to me that even though we may find some images or ideas offensive, that doesn't mean we should remove them from Wikipedia. We're here to provide information, not to avoid offending people. If we were going to try and write our encyclopedia such that no article would offend anyone, we'd have a lot of deletion ahead of us. --Elonka 21:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Elonka, I popped by because I'm a bit confused... I see you warned OrangeMarlin, apparently for this edit, calling it an "appalling personal attack", and threatening him with a block. I went and looked at it and although I'm a believer in WP:SPADE I agree that it might be a bit less than 100% saccharine sweet to point out that someone is a racist, even if (as is unclear to me so far) they actually are one. However I also happened to notice this diff to the same talk page where OM was speaking, in which Jagz used far stronger language. Yet I see you here, apparently arguing that you'd be willing to consider an unblock for Jagz. I'm completely confused by that. Can you let me know where you warned or counseled Jagz for that "appalling personal attack" on MastCell? Because I'm wondering if you're completely unbiased in this matter... those two things taken in context suggest a significant skewing in your viewpoint, at least apparently. Please help me out and explain what was going on here. I'll be quite interested to hear it, since you've been rather quick to find procedural fault with others. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit from Jagz was removed a few minutes later by B (talk · contribs), who also reinstated the indef block on Jagz (as a side note, I have no clue how to write Jagz in the possessive form, yike). Elonka posted this to Jagz talk page. I'm thinking a 'warning' was no longer necessary. And if you wonder why her stance has changed, I should also point out this all occurred four months ago. I know you two haven't been seeing eye to eye lately, but I don't see how this is helping the current situation. Respectfully, --InkSplotch (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; but I was hoping for an answer from Elonka (not from you) about the apparent inconsistency here. I'm a softie, everyone knows it, but I don't get this support for Jagz at all. (see what Slrubenstein writes, just above...) As for "haven't been seeing eye to eye" I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to intrude, and I certainly can't speak for anyone but myself. I've no clue why Elonka might be willing to stick up for Jagz at this point, but you look at two of her diffs and wonder at possible bias. I just wanted to point out that 1) they're four months apart, and 2) she did respond four months ago in a more expected manner: suggesting that Jagz stay blocked. So rather than contrast her current comments about Jagz to her comments to MastCell, I think a more relevant question is, what's changed in Elonka's opinion of Jagz between then and now?

The "eye to eye" comment was in regards to Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs), over whom you both seem to have had a much more pronounced difference of opinion. From my outside perspective, I see quite a few similarities here. I don't suspect bias, I do suspect Elonka is "sticking up for the underdog" or perhaps playing devil's advocate. And while that's not a bad thing, per se, it can be when it becomes reflexive. When it becomes a crusade. --InkSplotch (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for a comment on Wikipedia policy concerning edit warring

As you have helped moderate before, I would like you to look at [this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Another_questionable_reference.3F specific discussion] concerning Wikipedia editing policy. I think it makes the reasons for constant problems in the E1b1b article, very clear for anyone who knows Wikipedia. It requires no opinion on the subject matter of the article. It also shows that for the time being it is inevitable that there will be more reverts and no efforts to compromise. Maybe a clear statement about the definition of edit warring from more people could help avoid the inevitable repetition of edit wars. The problem is that the person involved clearly believes that a pattern of behavior which is the definition of edit warring is actually demanded by Wikipedia "rules".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for something similar, although much less diplomatically, at User talk:Khoikhoi#Re: AN/I. We currently have the situation of an editor taking the actions of two admins as confirmation that their skewed interpretation of policy (slightly rephrased: since the threshold for inclusion is reliable sources, an infinite number of reverts is allowed to prevent removal of reliably sourced sentences, and this does not constitute edit-warring) is correct. This helps nobody; least of all the editor in question. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

I am complying with the closing of the RFC.[18] But other editors are not complying with the closing of the RFC. I'm not sure why would you want to ban me for complying with the closing of the RFC while other editors are arguing against the consensus and closing of the RFC. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#There are problems with moving forward at chiropractic. QuackGuru 23:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not a ban, it was a request. --Elonka 23:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been monitoring Quackguru's actions closely since I warned him about the discretionary sanctions and he has followed my advice to the letter and I have seen no further cause for concern. In particular his editing of the article has followed talkpage consensus with no edit-warring and I've seen no further complaints from editors working on the article about his actions. I would strongly disagree with any topic ban (formal or informal). Tim Vickers (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you may want to read the (rather long) post I made here that puts together my observations of QuackGuru's recent behavior. Shell ^babelfish 05:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Sure, go ahead. I've been meaning to figure out how to do it myself but have never got around to it. Thanks. --Tocino 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Tocino 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I know mate, i've seen a lot of vandalism today in articles i like. it's great that wiki doesn't block so easy, but i've seen good opinionated editors getting banned because an admin was their opposite POV, and i see chronic psycho vandals only full of notes and no bans.150.140.225.175 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And you are the constructive one? By making edit summaries like this : "if you ever vandalize here again i will kill your family and every person sharing a haplogroup with you" or provoking comments in user talk pages (like this or "tough luck 74.72.11.32, all your edits were reverted. all your "work" gone) Dipa1965 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka

Thanks for the post on my talk page. Things have moved on beyond that now. See Incidents page under Coal Mining. I think I'm about done. See also my user page.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that helps. I like especially what you did on the Environmental Effects page. But doesn't leave much on the Coal Mining page. Slim pickins there.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to remove material concerning Mathsci's attempts to out me. I'm concerned about the archived Incident report initially filed about the Law article concerning Yannis, in which Mathsci made a couple references correllating my user page description with the author of a book he referred to concerning the Coal Mining article. He made similar references in a message posted to my talk page, which I deleted, but I imagine there is an archive of that also. In addition he attempted to get me to open email communication with him, I think to get me to identify myself. Sigh.

There is so much more I could add, over time, but this is so discouraging. I think I will wait a few days and then close this account. Maybe I'll be back later, but I doubt it. Too much grief. It's like the old saw "no good deed goes unpunished." Life is short, and I don't need the aggravation of cowboy anarchy. Nobody does...Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This just never stops. Have you seen the thread Mathsci on talk page of FT2? Bizarre.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I have not and will not enter my personal email address on my preferences if that is what is required for me to receive email from someone. I can't do that without revealing my identity, and because there are administrators involved in this controversy who may be able to access my preferences page, I don't think that is wise.

Understand nothing I have experienced so far with Yannis or Mathsci or Slrubenstein or KT2 or Jehochman has inspired much confidence in Wikipedia. They all seem more concerned about themselves than about the Wiki harrassment policy. Only Charles Matthews and you seem to take it at all seriously.

I already have multiple email accounts and see no reason to obtain another just for this silliness. If Mathsci wishes to contact me, s/he can do so on my talk page as you have done. If that is not acceptable, then I guess Mathsci doesn't really wish to contact me on any terms but his/her own.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So, would it be reasonable to characterize Wikipedia as a large scale internet game that allows many simultaneous players; attracts kids who have grown tired of action games and improving their motor skills and are looking for something a little more heady; provides opportunities for non-threatening (e.g., anonymous) interaction with persons having similar inclinations and some adults; provides opportunities for intellectual and social risk-taking and making mistakes without personal social consequences at home; provides those who stick it out for awhile and become administrators with opportunities to participate in rule making and application, as well as discussion of the consequences of imposting sanctions? If so, an encyclopedia is a vehicle for a larger social development experiment for teens, eh? An educational/developmental game? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Banned

Yes, a long-term problem user, abusive sockpuppeteer who has had three independent block reviews. Unless ArbCom do step in and lift the ban I don't think any admin would consider unblocking. Therefore, he's been community banned. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin, and I would consider unblocking. Based on my own review, Jagz has effectively been tarred and feathered, but no one has yet provided a strong basis for why. I just see a lot of name-calling, without diffs. --Elonka 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a difference. It was disgusting to read and inappropriate. QuackGuru 19:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You would be wise to wait until ArbCom has considered his unblock request. If it is granted, no action from you is necessary, and if it is denied, then you would be placing your own judgment over that of the blocking admin, the three admins who reviewed the unblock request, and ArbCom. I'd recommend you consider your actions very carefully indeed under those circumstances. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that I would just unblock unilaterally. I meant that I am willing to unblock, if other conditions are met. I have no intention of wheel warring. But my understanding of the banning policy, is that, barring a full community banning discussion, as long as there exists an admin who would be willing to consider an unblock, that an indef block is not a ban. I know that there's a lot of confusion though over "what is a ban" and "what is a block". What I've honestly been seeing though with the Jagz situation, is one where a kind of lynch mob mentality set in. There was a content dispute at some articles, including Race and intelligence, which resulted in a certain group of editors repeatedly calling Jagz a troll because they disagreed with the kind of information that he wished to add. Jagz, an editor on Wikipedia since 2005 who had done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in the past, including some on an article that reached FA, eventually reacted with anger, including some unfortunate incivility. When he did this, it just reinforced all the other voices calling him a troll, and he was indef blocked. He then responded with even worse incivility towards the admin that blocked him. However, aside from the rather constant name-calling by his opponents, no one has yet produced diffs that he was violating Wikipedia policies in any way prior to this dispute. If anyone can provide such diffs, I would be happy to review them. But until then, it is my opinion that we may have blocked a good editor who just lost his temper. Which is why I would still be willing to consider an unblock. --Elonka 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it's probably a good idea to heed what Tim wrote in its entirety. Jagz was community-banned, after much thought and for excellent reasons: primarily that Wikipedia does not tolerate racism, anti-Semitism, etc. Incivility, of which I am sometimes guilty, is one thing, but racism and anti-Semitism and the rest of the -isms that go with those two, is something else entirely. Additionally, serving NPA warnings to those who know full well Jagz' MO and POV is not necessarily helpful and should only be done when it's clearly a vio of NPA, not just anger that a banned editor is still posting in a disruptive and disgusting manner. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch, Jagz was not community-banned. He was indef blocked, there's a difference. See WP:BAN. As for the other comments, if you're going to make those kinds of accusations towards another editor, you'd better provide diffs, thanks. --Elonka 21:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A community ban is an indefinite block in which no admin is willing to unblock the user. You concurred with the indefinite block at the time [19] and no admin opposed it. At that point, he was effectively community banned. This user had six mainspace edits (none significant) in his last month here, so I'm not sure what benefit there would be from removing his ban. --B (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, do you have a job where others do your research for you or where you do your own? And, are you calling Tim's judgment into question? Also, "you'd better provide diffs" implies a threat of some sort (given the tacit "or else"); perhaps "please provide diffs" would be better. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Once we know what ArbCom decided, Jim, we'll be in a better position to discuss this. Incidentally, I'm quite happy for my judgment to be questioned, since like everybody I make mistakes all the time, but we need all the facts before we can decide what is the best thing to do. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

True, and while I have to admit to questioning your judgment a couple of times, I ended up agreeing with you. Although I still think you're too calm.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

allow me to add (having been following this little debate out of idle curiosity), that diffs would be very helpful. I've noticed a tendency in wikipedia disputes to rely - sometimes almost exclusively - on character references/assassinations rather than on actual behavior. however, it seems to me that it really shouldn't matter whether Jagz has horns and sulfury smoke coming out of his nose, or whether you and Tim are made entirely out of Barnstars. the issue should still be decided by a careful examination of the questionable behavior in context. no offense to you or your word, but there's nothing quite like seeing for oneself, yah? --Ludwigs2 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagz was under community ban. Elonka lifted the ban, claiming she could mentor him. Rather than call that wheel-warring, I am willing to watch and give Elonka a shot. But she failed miserably - well, I should say Jagz failed. The community ban was restored. I have no idea why Elonka is so invested in revoking the community ban against a disruptive, racist editor. And i am all for giving fellow admin's some slack. But sooner or later disrupting community bans really does bcome wheel-warring and I would say trying to to revoke a community ban a second time, well, that is one step too far, surely. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While Elonka said she would consider unblocking, I'm sure she would not make that decision before gauging the opinions of other editors and waiting for ArbCom's response - she may be bold, but she's not completely indifferent to other people's opinions. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Tim, I stand corrected. But I do have to correct Elonka's characterization of a dispute that she endlessly repeats although she has been corrected: "a certain group of editors repeatedly calling Jagz a troll because they disagreed with the kind of information that he wished to add. Jagz, an editor on Wikipedia since 2005 who had done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in the past, including some on an article that reached FA, eventually reacted with anger, including some unfortunate incivility." There was and remains a strong consensus at these articles that certain claims, especially the one that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites, is fringe and racist science and virtually any discussion of the claim, except in its historical context, would violate WEIGHT. For well over a year Jagz kept insisting on putting the claim in as a major view among mainstream scientists. We had at least two RfCs. There was an overhwelming consensus against doing this. I and several other editors tried to reason with Jagz, explaining why we rejected his claim. I asked on many occasions for him to explain his reasoning and provide his evidence, and he never did. It was only after several months of his refusal to discuss his edit, combined with his insistence of pushing his fringe POV against consensus, that I began dismissing him as a troll. The problem was not his losing his temper after being called a troll. The problem was his being a troll, i.e. the pattern of racist pov-pushing edits and disruptive behavior on the talk page, and an unwillingless to participate in any attempt to compromise and a refusal to accept mediation... it was all of these troll-behaviors that got him blocked. During the dispute several people provided an explanation of the account, which Elonka ignored. Nor could she produce edit differences to support her case. At this point it is clear to me that the problem is not Jagz but Elonka, who refuses to treat hard-working, well-informed editors, who have consistently argued on the basis of solid research and policy, with any respect or good faith, and who insists that she has the permanent right to review our edits. Do we have to justify every edit to her? Is she the permanent moderator of these pages? By what authority or right? This presumption of power is itself an insult to the Wikipedia community. At this point it seems to me that Elonka is just nursing a bruised ego. She has defended a racist troll and tried to mentor him, and he resisted her best efforts. But she continues to suggest that her opinion must be right and that of all other editors, wrong. Elonka, you made a mistake. We forgive you. Now get over it and move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is as close to a truly "outside" opinion as you're likely to get in Wikipedia. I came here by mistake, having accidentally clicked on a google link that took me to a Wikipedia article rather than to the collection of papers at NYU I needed to consult on a particular topic; I read the Wikipedia entry on the topic with mixed amusement, disbelief, and horror. I wondered to myself, "Who are these people, who could get such an interesting subject so totally and ludicrously wrong?" I saw the "discussion" tab at the top of the page, clicked it, and started reading, going from one article to another. A link from that article led to a Wikiproject that asked for help at "What the Bleep Do We Know." I figured I could be helpful there, so I went there and participated in a discussion that led to a lead that all sides could agree on; I learned a lot during that time about how consensus building works. Following links, I found the fringe theory and NPOV noticeboards, and it was at one of those boards that I learned about the race and intelligence article, which when I read it made me physically ill. I did my masters' degee work in psychology and am familiar with what reliable sources have to say on this topic; I also have some understanding of where the fringe and racist ideas on this subject come from (they come from very marginal polemicists and political think tanks, not from reliable research); those ideas serve a particular political agenda ("neo-Nazi" is an inflammatory term I might not have chosen for purposes of this discussion, but since it's been raised, I'll agree that these ideas do indeed serve a neo-Nazi agenda) but have no place in an encyclopedia that prides itself on being a serious, high-quality reference work that offers a neutral presentation of a topic as portrayed in reliable sources.

The article had been brought to the attention of the noticeboard by Jagz, because there was so much complaint at the article itself about the POV slant of the article, that he wanted some outside opinions and so had started an RfC at the article talk page. The outside opinions overwhelmingly agreed with the inside opinions (that the article was not NPOV as it stood) and because he was unhappy with how the RfC was going, he withdrew the request for comments. He did this twice as I recall, announced and then withdrew requests for comments when they didn't go his way. He was obviously not interested in working to arrive at the consensus of reliable sources; instead he seemed interested only in keeping the article as it was, POV and very unencyclopedic. In this case, it was one person (as I recall there might have been one other working along with Jagz to promote this agenda, but I don't remember the name) working against the consensus of all other editors. I thought consensus was supposed to be a good thing; to call editors who have reached consensus with reliable sources on a topic a "lynch mob" is to fail to understand what our purpose is here. To insist that responsible editors reach some sort of consensus with editors promoting material that has no place in the encyclopedia is to serve only the purpose of the fringe advocates, not to serve the purpose of building an encyclopedia.

In my reading on Wikipedia I had come to realize that while the core policies that form the underpinnings of the project are brilliant and should ensure the high-quality product that is the stated goal, they can only promote that goal if their enforcement is a high priority, and I didn't see any commitment at any level to enforcing these policies. I identified (not in consultation with anyone here but simply my own conclusions drawn from my own reading in articles that interest me) three editors who were disrupting articles by continually trying to insert material that served some agenda other than the encyclopedic agenda of accurately portraying the subject as represented in reliable sources; I decided that if these three editors were blocked or banned I would be able to believe in Wikipedia and its commitment to producing a reliable encyclopedia. Jagz was one of these editors. In quick succession, the first of the editors was banned, then Jagz was blocked, and then the third POV pusher was given a topic ban to stay out of the articles he was disrupting, and I was just starting to think okay, it looks like maybe Wikipedia is serious after all, and now I will make good on my promise to start editing here if these three editors were banned.

Enter Elonka. I watched in disbelief as Elonka rescued Jagz from being blocked and gave him helpful suggestions on how to game the system. But even under that unbelievably indulgent tutelage, Jagz couldn't help himself and lashed out and was blocked again. I thought okay, that's that; she learned her lesson. But no, here she is again, arguing a simply unsupportable argument that Jagz' problems were caused by people not treating him right, not by his insistence on promoting an agenda that is not supported by reliable sources and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Elonka can't possibly have looked seriously at the history here, or at the content of the articles in question. You really can't determine who is disruptive purely on the basis of conduct; the bottom line for the encyclopedia is content. If Elonka is allowed to have her way with these kinds of issues, it will be the end of the ideal of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia; if this is the direction Wikipedia chooses to go, from now on the only possible future for the project is to be a platform to promote the most dubious, ludicrous and dangerous ideas available today, and to be a laughingstock to people who want an encyclopedia to be a summary of reliable information from reliable sources (a group that comprises most people outside Wikipedia itself). Woonpton (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Woonpton, thank you for your thoughtful message. However, at the risk of me sounding like a broken record, could you please provide some diffs? Specifically, could you point to some places where Jagz was inserting information into articles that was either (a) unsourced; (b) depending on unreliable sources; (c) misinterpreting reliable sources; or (d) in violation of talkpage consensus? Thanks, --Elonka 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was taken to mediation here. [20] During that period Jagz stopped editing. Because he did not sign up - he was the "major player" referred to by User:Daniel - mediation was dropped. Very soon afterwards Jagz reappeared on WP. Although I hardly edited Race and intelligence, I saw that Jagz made a huge issue over this sentence [21] which rather clearly indicated that the POV he was pushing (that of Murray, Rushton, Jensen and Lynn) was not accepted by mainstream academics. His tinkering with the phrase was against consensus: his versions clearly changed its meaning. [22] Similarly he attempted to introduce material about biomedicine unrelated to the article with a source that didn't even mention biomedicine.[23] On the other hand I hardly edited the mainspace article, so other editors are in a much better position to comment. You might find it helpful having a word with User:Moonriddengirl, the administrator who watched the page for a long period. Mathsci (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if I may be so bold as to remind you that you have trawled through the contribution histories of a number of users for no apparent reason: surely in this case you could apply the same trawling process when there clearly is a reason. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me a moment's frustration. I read through all of the diffs Mathsci posted above, carefully and slowly, and I don't see anything there that indicates Jagz was being racist, disruptive, or even uncivil (well, maybe a couple of points on the last...). in fact, it seems as though Jags was putting in a lot of effort to make a relatively minor adjustment on a passage he thought was incorrect, and ran into a whole lot of seemingly ungrounded and petty interference from a handful of other editors. in particular this] link, in which (apparently) a revert war happened because Jagz tried to add a {{dubious}} tag to a passage, and then Jagz tries 3 or 4 different revisions on the talk page to clean up the problem, with the only responses being things like The sentence makes its point rather clearly and does not seem worth arguing about and Your formulations just say exactly what the current section says, just in a far less legible manner, along with a handful of pov-pusher and troll references. finally, when Ramdrake steps in and Jags agrees that Ramdrakes version of the passage is good, Jagz is accused (bizarrely) of filibustering.

I count 3 mildly uncivil comments by Jagz in this section, and 4 or 5 mildly uncivil comments directed at Jagz (including slrubenstien twice linking wp:DNFTT). I count 3 times in which Ramdrake (who I take as a relatively neutral voice on this diff) criticized Jagz for making off-topic or personal comments, but Ramdrake seems to have neglected to make any criticisms whatsoever of other editors for equally snappish statements. just based on behavior, this diff seems to support Jagz as a relatively decent editor, and I feel a certain sympathy for him because he looks like he's being badgered - and yet this is offered as criticism? Maybe Jagz is some god-forsaken neo-nazi from hell, but I sure as heck can't draw that conclusion from the material that's been provided here. --Ludwigs2 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

All those words to say that the point was missed? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Twenty seconds of homework. Sigh. [24]. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I started calling Jagz a troll when it was evident to me that he is a troll. I waited over a year. If you want to see the evidence, you will just have read all talk concerning race and intelligence from late 2006 to mid 2008. Does this sound like a lot of work? Well, it is up to you, but that is what you need to do to see his pattern of trollish behavior. here is a very mild example: [25]. The comment by itself is irritating and does not violate any single policy. But I am not accusing Jagz of having made one two or even three edits that violated a single policy. i am accusing him of being a troll and what makes him a troll is a pattern of behavior over a more than 18 month period. What is this patten? Ignoring other people's reasoning. refusing to explain his own reasoning. Pushing for the inclusion on one fringe point of view, namely that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. No one edit is a violation of any policy. Wikipedia editors of good faith have to use their judgment. Ramdrake, Alun, myself and others participated in the talk page discussion for years and reached this conclusion. Do you doubt us? Do what we did: read through two years or so of talk. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka and others need to stop wikilawyering and understand that not all conflicts and problems at Wikipedia are caused by single or repeat violations of wikipedia policy A pattern of behavior over a year's period that has a disruptive influence on the discussion is trolling. Ludwig takes my comment out of context. the context is not what happened that day, it is what happened that whole year. Whant to understand why I wrote what I wrote? Do what jagz and others did: follow the whole discussion for over a year. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

slrubenstein: I don't mean any offense - while I disagree with you on a good number of points, I happen to think you're a good editor. However, I wasn't taking your comments out of context; I was taking them in the context you gave, which is the only context I have. Let me be frank: the problems you cite - (slightly modified): Ignoring other people's reasoning. refusing to explain his own reasoning. Pushing for the inclusion on one point of view - are problems I myself experience on a frequent basis with certain well-regarded editors here whom no one is accusing of being trolls. this is endemic to wikipedia. if you want to make the argument that Jagz is a troll (different from these other editors who do the same things), then it's your responsibility to provide an argument that his behavior is significantly above and beyond the pale. don't make it our responsibility to fact-check your accusations: present diffs that put Jagz behavior in context and show the pattern of abuse, show that it's different from the gobs of low-grade crap that we all have to deal with from each other, otherwise I'm just as likely to think that you're overreacting. it's not that I doubt you, but it is your case to make.

Jim: yeah, I'm a talker. it serves me well in academia and the dating world, but no so good other places. and that comment about Mastcell was irritating and juvenile (and MC, in my experience, doesn't do anything to deserve that kind of thing), but by itself might merit a two day block. was that a consistent thing that Jagz did? if so, I'd understand the troll accusations a lot more. --Ludwigs2 00:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch, you're right, that comment from Jagz was disgusting, and deserving of an immediate block.[26] I said as much when Jagz made it, back in June, and supported his block.[27] I also protected Jagz's talkpage at the time to prevent Jagz was continuing to say anything else uncivil.[28] But it still doesn't make Jagz a troll. Look at the context of that statement, which is that Jagz was reacting to admin MastCell for blocking him. In no way does this excuse the language. But it fails to answer two questions: (1) Why was Jagz indef blocked in the first place; and (2) Why is he indef blocked now? If we're allowing indef blocks of any editor for a couple lapses in civility, well, I've got a list, just let me know, I'll get right on that.  :) Getting back to the definition of the word "troll" though, I think some people here are very confused on just what this term means. Please, I encourage everyone to actually read WP:TROLL. Even better, read this NY Times article, "The trolls among us," which does an excellent job of explaining what trolling really is.[29] There are some disgusting trolls out there. But Jagz is not one of them. Rude? Sometimes, definitely. Fringe POV-pusher? Maybe, maybe not. Troll? Nope. --Elonka 01:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Trolldom is hardly the only offense for which one can be banned. What I'm seeing from you and Ludwigs is a pathetic attempt to ignore the evidence (and I'll bet you've not trawled yet) and the implicit assertion that, at the very least, Vickers and slrubenstein are, at best, cognitively dissonant, and at worst, lying. Your defense of Jagz is rather troubling given your penchant for warning others for far less serious "crimes". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

well, Jim, all I can say is that I wish we had some darned evidence to ignore. talk about pathetic... You seem to think that you can say whatever nasty thing you want to say about someone, and the rest of us ought to believe it because... because... (please picture me waving my hands around, trying to find a meaningful explanation of this). and NOW you seem to be suggesting that there's some other non-troll reason that Jagz should have been banned for. why don't we just cut to the chase and recognize that you think Jagz ought to remain banned because you don't like him, and any further discussion is simply epiphenomenal to that fact.

I swear, I have never seen so many people who get so up in arms over a simple request for information. If you have evidence to present, take the time and effort to present it. if you don't, what are you doing here? --Ludwigs2 02:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(interpost)I liked the dating comment. :)

Slrubenstein explained to all here what to look at -- as he noted it is not a matter of single instances, it is a matter of a pattern: a pattern that Jagz has displayed for two years. And yes, not being willing to take the time to read through the history and to analyze the data collected is pathetic: unless you, Elonka and others are willing to do the homework nothing will be learned and nothing will be resolved. Think of it as an extension of Academia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, Jagz was an inveterate pov-pusher, that's something that numerous good faith, experienced and productive editors who had to put up with his behaviour for years have attested to. This is a pattern of behaviour, that means that the provision of a few diffs cannot resolve the situation. Pov pushing is a problem on Wikipedia, it is characterised by an ongoing pattern of behaviour. If Elonka or yourself really were interested in being productive you could have investigated this more thoroughly. Instead Elonka has gone out of her way to imply that a great many excellent editors have "tarred and feathered" Jagz (an unfortunate use of words considering that it was Jagz himself who was promoting racism here), and you, true to form, have jumped in to demand that pov-pushing should be recognised as acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. To be frank you have no understanding of this situation, if you did you would not be demanding diffs, you would know that this man was a serial pov-pusher. You claim to have been the victim of "tag team" behaviour, so you should understand how frustrating it is to make sound edits only to be constantly reverted by someone with a pov to push. When numerous experienced editors attest that a single editor has been disruptive and damaging to the project, I fail to see why it should be these editors who are characterised as a "lynch mob". I don't understand why you feel so strongly about this, but you are speaking from the point of view of ignorance, and that is never a strong position, for example if you doubt Jagz's racist pov all you need do is read the edit summary on this edit: "biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven", that may give you some idea of the pov Jagz is pushing. My own personal problems with Jagz stem from the fact that I wanted to introduce a specific discussion regarding the meaning of Heritability to the article. I had been reading Race and IQ edited by Ashley Montagu. This book is a collection of essays and published scientific papers written by experts in anthropology, genetics, psychology, sociology and other relevant disciplines (for example Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, Walter Bodmer amongst others). Many of these papers discuss the misuse of heritability by researchers promoting racist ideas about "race and intelligence". As there was a book written by a number of world leaders in the field, I though it appropriate to include some of their analysis. Obviously this did not conform to the pov that Jagz and his "tag team" friend Legalleft wanted to push, so they simply removed my edit. This edit was not only sourced, but contained relevant information to the subject. The only possible reason for removal was due to pov-pushing, i.e. it contained a pov that was unacceptable to someone pushing a specific agenda. That was the last straw for me, I could handle Jagz's passive-aggressive attitude on the talk page, but this was beyond the pale, he was obviously determined to subvert Wikipedia to promote his personal beliefs.[30] [31] I was so angry that I left the article for a while and unwatched it. Sometimes it's best to walk away. A little later I tried to make a section dealing with the same subject a little more neutral,[32] by again introducing different points of view. Jagz's response was to slap OR and syn tags all over my edit.[33] This was extremely irritating and seems to have been a deliberate attempt to bait me. Baiting other editors was a strategy of Jagz's, he did it time and again on the talk page, as many people who had dealings with him here have attested. No one is making this up, had Jagz been a cooperative and consensual editor anyone would have been happy to work with him, whatever his personal opinions. But he was only interested in promoting a single point of view, and he went out of his way to remove or diminish any edit that did not conform to his own personal ideology. Those are the facts. Elonka is fretting over so called "civility", but she seems little concerned with the systematic attempts of Jagz to undermine the neutrality and accuracy of Wikipedia. Frankly I think Elonka should get her priorities straight. Civility is not, and never should be, a greater concern than the reliability of Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the discussion I gave the diff for, Jagz does not seem to have answered any question directly. He objected to a sentence (not written by me!) which made it clear that the work of Rushton and Lynn had not been accepted by mainstream scientists. He did disappear during mediation. He did ask Ramdrake about LGBT. He did ask to see Ramdrake's Ph.D. certificate. He did dismiss something I said on the grounds that I was French. He did claim to have retired from editing the article R&I. He did post surreal sections on the talk page of R&I like this [34]. He did insert unsourced and irrelevant remarks about biomedicine. He did forum shop. He also evaded his second block [35] with an edit similar to this one [36], and was blocked by MastCell. Even as User:Fat Cigar he did not edit any non race-related articles.

On the other hand, despite all this, I don't see why he can't be given a third chance as Elonka has suggested [37], with a different mentor than Elonka, who seems a little too personally involved with Jagz at this stage. He might also change his user name at the same time, to give him a fresh start. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Based on my own review, Jagz has effectively been tarred and feathered

I've asked Elonka several times to stop making this sort of vague attack on unnamed wikipedians. It's extremely counterproductive, these are weasel words, plain and simple. Elonks has repeatedly claimed that she's in favour of civility, but this sort of comment is not civil and not assuming good faith. I think it's fair to say that Elonks is being far from neutral and unbiased, when she portrays one set of editors as a lynch mob (but refuses to name them) while claiming that an inveterate POV pusher, who has been identified as such by a host of very experienced and productive editors, is somehow the victim here. Elonka's extreme and biased point of view in this situation should clearly mean that she should recuse herself from any dealings involving Jagz, and leave any unblocking to an unbiased admin. Alun (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I believe the result of the appeal should in effect render the discussion moot and close it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent - edit conflict) let me be clear about what I'm doing here. I'm not defending Jagz (whom I have never encountered, and who, for all I know, might be as bad as you all say), and I'm not arguing out of ignorance. I'm arguing out of principle. I know an awful lot about the human mind, enough to know that impressions of people are horribly unreliable guides to their actual nature. an impression of someone is just a story about them, often passed back and forth between people, magnified and abridged and confabulated, until it holds little real relationship to the person in question. did you know, for instance, that 'boogieman' is a corruption of the british 'boneyman', which was originally a reference to Napoleon Bonaparte? I sincerely doubt Napolean himself ever hid under some kid's bed... worse, once a particular impression of someone gets circulated, people start acting as though it were true, and then it becomes truly difficult to see the person or interact with him/her as anything except the impression. I am simply trying to get us all past the impressions of Jagz to look at what he was actually doing.

just to give an example, let me use the edit summary Alun gave above. Jagz changed the heading on the 'history' section of the Race and Identity article to 'African American history', with the summary "predominantly about African Americans and biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven". now, the first part of this summary is correct: the section really was about the history of Africans in America. the second part is also correct, but logically flawed and biased (you can't ever prove that two things are equal; best you can do is demonstrate that you don't have reason to believe they are different). but what I can't tell from it is whether Jagz is actually trying to suggest that some races are unequal, or whether he's being ham-handed in an effort to say that equality is an assumption (me, I would have approached that issue by questioning whether the concept of 'race' was a real distinction or just a social construct). in the next set of diffs that Alun gave (starting here, Jagz makes an innocuous set of edits to shift a paragraph and add the clarifying terms nature and nurture, legalleft makes a very questionable deletion of an entire section [38], Alun reinserts the section [39] with an argumentative edit summary ( what is wrong with you, you really can't stand to see any neutrality here at all can you), and Jagz reverts him[40] with an equally argumentative summary. that strikes me more as a bad reaction than racism. the section itself (at that time) borders on SYN, so it probably should have been discussed rather than reverted.

and then there's this [41], which as Ramdrake said was not in the best of taste, but which seemed more of a joke based on the previous edit (which added a roman Phallic statue).

the impression I'm getting from these new diffs (thank you for supplying them, by the way) is that Jagz is (...comment removed as innappropriate) but I'm still not seeing the overt racism or trollishness being claimed for him. on user pages (like the earlier quote about MastCell and the defacing of Mathsci's page, which were uncalled for) Jagz seems to be prone to losing his cool, but in article content not so much. for instance, he could have easily used the N word instead of saying 'African American history', or he could have said somewhere outright that he thought some races were inferior (which is what I would expect from a racist - they don't tend to be soft-spoken about their beliefs), and he could have done a lot more to goad people. Mostly I see him editing more or less constructively with an irritable attitude, but that is such a normal state of affairs on highly contentious articles that I'm not certain it justifies calling him a troll. but still that's just my impression. see what I'm getting at here?--Ludwigs2 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(to ramdrake) it certainly does that. --Ludwigs2 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't rally think that your comments are relevant. Whether you personally see that jagz was overtly racist or not is irrelevant, whether you think he's poor at communication or not is irrelevant. Indeed an editor being racist is certainly no justification for blocking them, basically I don't care if Jagz is a racist, but I do care when he pushed a racist pov and is not prepared to accept that the views he is pushing are biased and deforming the article. I don't care what you personally "see", we're not talking about your personal impression. Frankly you appear to be willing to interpret any criticism of Jagz as overblown, and appear not to be interested that a large group of editors who actually do have experience with him (which you do not) are saying that his pattern of editing was biased and disruptive. It's odd that you claim not to be writing from a perspective of ignorance, while at the same time admitting that you have personally had no interaction with Jagz. These positions are mutually exclusive. The fact that you have never had dealings with him is proof that you are writing from a position of ignorance regarding his disruptive pov-pushing. As usual you have tried to shift the discussion to something tangential and generally irrelevant to the subject at hand. Jagz was a pov-pusher, that is the subject at hand, I provided the diff regarding his racist edit summary so you would understand conclusively what his pov actually is. I did leave an angry edit summary, I was angry and fed up with the pov-pushing of a set of editors who were prepared to do just about anything to remove any criticism of the position they held. These two editors could and did remove my edit because it did not conform to their personal beliefs, and I had to accept this because I was a single editor against two, so they could always have reverted more times than I could. In the past you have stated that this is "tag teaming". Personally I don't think that Jagz and Legalleft were "tag teaming", I just think they were two editors with the same pov to push who wanted to suppress information that contradicted them. There is no evidence that they were part of a cabal. Legalleft's pov can be seen from the fact that he created the article African IQ (now deleted). That article was the product of a single published paper. When I checked, the paper in question had been written by a non-scientist who is heavily involved with the racist web site Gene Expression, Jason Malloy. A little investigation on my part showed that the references list of the article cited sources that did not make the same claims that were made in the article. The whole article was a massive synthesis loosely held together by a single source that lacked any credibility.[42] You appear to be saying that this is only a "minor" problem. I disagree, pov-pushing is a major problem in Wikipedia, and seriously undermines the project. Your comments about Jagz's edits are also irrelevant, I don't think anyone has claimed that every single edit of his contained no value. A large proportion of his editing at R&I was simply moving large portions of text around, as you point out. While this is annoying and generally pointless, and generally contributed zero to the article, it is not necessarily pov-pushing. What I object to, and strongly, is the removal of well sourced and relevant material from reliable sources simply because it does not conform to the bias of a particular editor. You have in the past claimed to have had similar problems, that editors have removed your edits simply because they did not like the fact that these included a pov that they personally didn't like. As such I'm surprised that you now seem to think that removal of material so an article can give a biased pov is perfectly acceptable. Alun (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2, you bring up a good example with "biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven" that i think shows the dangers of looking at things out of context. What do I mean by context? Well, a few things, actually. This is going to be a long response to your comment but you resplied ot my last comment with a very courteous and respectful disagreement so I believe I owe you an equally respectful and more thoughtful response.

Of course I mean the context of the two or more year discussions on the race and IQ talk page that led to Jagz being indef. blocked. But I also mean the context for published debates over race and IQ, contexts that belong in the article itself. The complicated thing about the race and IQ article (so complicated that some have proposed simply deleting it and sometimes I think they are right) is that it refers to two different things: a very notable debate among the general public, politicians, and civic leaders, and a very fringe debate among scientists. It is a fringe debate - rather than non-existent debate - among scientists because as in so many things science and politics/public policy intersect. If you can imagine using venn diagrams, imagine two big circles that have a relatively small overlap. I say relatively small because most scientists are not addressing public policy questions, and most of the general public and policy makers and politicians really do not follow the science. But there is a small overlap. The two circles provide us with the two contexts that belong in this article (if indeed there should be one article).

In the "politics and policy" circle there is a long history of people using claims about racial differences to justify social, political and economic inequalities. This is very well-documented in the United States but has been documented in many other parts of the world as well. The problem with these debates, from a scientist's point of view (and when I refer to such views, they have all been published) is that "race" is being used two ways: to identify people, and to identify a cause. And all evolutionary scientists, geneticists, and anthropologists (the disciplines or subdisciplines that study human races or human biology/genetics) agree that these two things are actually separate, completely different. When most people use "race" to identify groups of people, they are not referring to anything that can be called a biological cause (there are some scientists who have tried to redefine race so it can be used biologically, but they are a minority - a respected minority - among scientists and obviously what they mean by race is not what most non-scientists mean by race). When politicians and policy makers try to explain social, economic, or political inequalities (which they want to do if they want to promote fairer social systems) they leave the terrain of the life sciences and enter that of the social sciences and virtually all social scientists have said "race is a major site of inequality, and the causes are historical and political and economic."

In the other circle, the other context, you have scientists who study biological differences among humans, including genetic differences that cause such things like blood type or sickle-cell anemia and they are virtually unanimous in concluding that the term "race" is such a vague and blunt term that it has no value in analyzing these problems; it's like asking a surgeon to operate using a butter-knife. The butter-knife is real, it just isn't part of the surgeon's tool-kit. The very small overlap is filled by a small group of people who are not trained in, or experts in, genetics - mostly psychologists - who do claim that race is biologically real and that the social differences among races are the results of biological differences. This space exists because these are academics explicitly addressing policy concerns - they are literally speaking to politicians and civil leaders and a popular audience. Their work has been almost universally rejected by other social scientists and by life scientists. It exists because it is intelligible to and useful to some politicians (in a way that work by real geneticists is not helpful).

Now the context of the arguments on the talk page that got Jagz blocked. I and several other editors insisted that if a claim about human biology was being made in the article, for us to consider it a significant view from a reliable source it had to come from someone recognized for their expertise in biology. Moreover, we wanted to make sure that the mainstream life science and mainstream social science research was adequately represented. Now let's return to what jagz wrote: "biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven" This is a tendentious and misleading sentence in a number of ways. First of all, virtually all social scientists will agree that races are unequal, and a good deal of social science is aimed at explaining this inequality. Jagz would regularly argue with us that we were pushing some egalitarian POV that says all races are equal. I and others would write at length about social science research trying to explain racial inequality, and we would add that to the article, and Jagz would keep arguing that we were denying inequality. It got very tiring. Second, biologists and population geneticists and molecular geneticists simply do not use race in this way, and whenever jagz would point to biological differences we would have to take time to explain why geneticists do not mean what he means by race, or are not using the word race at all. It got tiring. Jagz was not a vandal; his incivility was not the issue. One problem was that for two years editors like myself who had done research on this and were trying to add material had to take time out to keep giving jagz the same explanations. His talk, which only ever kept repeating the same ignorant points over and over, took up space on the talk page that should have gone to improving the article. Another problem: we never wrote that all races are equal. In fact, all we ever wrote was summaries of what researchers wrote. That is because we were busy reading peer-reviewed journal articles and academic textbooks. Jagz didn't. He just kept wanting to argue that Whites are naturally superior to Blacks. We were not even arguing the opposite - we were arguing that the bulk of the article should give an account of mainstream science. Mainstream scientists do try to prove that all races are equal for reasons you elegantly explained. It is just not what mainstream scientists are debating. so Second, Jagz kept trying to redefine what the article was about in terms of his interests and away from the actual debates found in mainstream life and social science literature. That is the second way in which he was a troll. Now, sometimes people familiar with the psychology/public policy literature (that small section where the two circles overlap) came in. Clearly, they knew the literature they were citing. The problem for us - I mean, good faith editors - is that the literature they were bringing is fringe in the social sciences, and fringe in the life sciences, but notable in public-policy discussions. So we had to work out a fair NPOV way to present the material, not an easy job. Every time a couple of editors (I provided a dif above) with opposing views started reaching some agreement, started building a productive consensus, Jagz would interrupt with an inane comment, sometimes insulting one of the editors, and often created a new section and raised all sorts of questions to sidetrack the discussion. This too got wearying. Yes, you can say: ignore it. We did our best for almost two years, but there is only so long that people can make progress on a page when one troll is trying to dominate the discussion. So, third he was consistently disruptive of any attempt to reach consensus among people with opposing views or concerns. There is one last way in which he was a troll. Our policy makes it clear that someone who makes a racist statement aimed directly at another editor is violating policy. But how do we handle someone who makes blanket statements against a race, directed at no one in particular? If I am not Black, I cannot accuse jagz of violating policy because he is not directing it at me. But it gets worse; what about Black editors? Jagz is not directing his statements to any one editor personally. But he is asserting that there is a significant body of scientific evidence that Blacks are naturally less intelligent than Whites. How is a Black wikipedian to respond? Now, if you are not from the US - if you are not from a country in which (1) there is enough racial heterogeneity that racism is a serious problem and (2) people have been trying to confront racism openly - you may not understand this at first, and I can only ask you to try, but it is very hard for a member of a particular race to take racist comments as anything but personal, even if they are made generically. So here is a fourth way Jagz was a troll: he drove Black editors away from working on the page. Now, we all know Wikipedia editors are not as divers a bunch as we wish they were. And diversity is valuable not in and of itself, but because editors with different backgrounds bring different skills and bodies of knowledge. Over the past four or more years many editors have come to the R&I page and have tried to add verifiable significant views from reliable sources about the history of racist science and the racism of people like Rushton, only to be told that Rushton is a scientist (he has a PhD in psychology; he has never done original research in biology or genetics and has no training in these fields) and a respected scientist and has compelling evidence that Blacks are naturally inferior to Whites. Ludwigs2, this has driven away good editors and it frankly, as long as jagz was editing, made the page and the talk page a humiliation to Wikipedia.

My point is that Jagz knew that what he wrote was tendentious and provocative, because we had all explained to him many times that no one is claiming that races are not equal. This is what is missing from your analysis – you are analyzing his comment as if it came out of nowhere. But it didn’t, he was responding to two years of discussion in which every time he made a point we would ask "what is your source" and he would provide a source that did not back up his point (or ignore the request), and we (me, Alun, others) always provided sources for our claims. So for him to shift the discussion from "what do the sources say" to "No one can prove this" is really disruptive. Look, if I made an edit "According to Flannery, one problem with Rushton's arguments is that he does not take into account the way that the scale by which IQ exams were scored has changed over time" and you added a tag saying that I was violating NPOV and then commented "This is wrong because you cannot prove all races are equal," what would you do? No, don't tell me - just imagine what you would do. Now imagine that you did that, and six months later, twelve months later, your edits are getting the same comments or revisions from Jagz. Imagine that no matter how you respond, how much you explain the sources, or policy, or no matter how many time you ask Jagz for his sources, his responses never change, they do not change over two years. It is this pattern over more than a year that lead me to conclude he was a troll. It took me a very long time before I just realized that there is a perfect Wikipedia policy for dealing with Jagz, and I was convinced that the only way for many editors to work together on the article was to follow this most excellent Wikipedia policy: WP:DNFTT. Once I realized that this was the way to move forward, not to attack Jagz but simply to ignore him, I started encouraging my fellow editors to stop writing the same long explanations to him that they had written dozens of times before and focus on the article. I am glad i did - the article began to move forward.

You think racists are only people who say "kike" or "nigger" or "spic?" I am afraid you are wrong – racism takes many different forms; American history has revealed a wide range of them. And you are also, I say this with respect and good faith, naïve about trolls. Of course had jagz expressed his hatred explicitly he would have been banned (the second time he was blocked, he did so because he crossed the line in a spectacular way). But this is not what makes someone a troll! A troll is the person who resists doing these things, who disrupts and offends and always has an excuse that if anything forces people to waste more time dealing with him.

Now, this was a very long comment but I am summarizing two years of history for you. I am not going to go back and find all the little edit difs, especially when most of them by themselves are innocuous. This is the difference between a troll and a vandal: vandals make edits that are obvious garbage. Trolls work more innocuously, through a pattern of edits that have profound disruptive effects even if no one is a policy violation. The bottom line is simple: Jagz never added anything valuable to the page, he never gave any indication of doing real research or knowing anything about social science or life science. he hung around for two years only to disrupt work on the article and use the talk page to keep pushing his racist views. He added nothing, and took a lot (spiritually I mean) and his being blocked did no damage at all to Wikipedia but removed the principal obstacle to progress on the R&I page. This to me is a no-brainer. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven" speaks volumes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I confess I haven't read it, but dude, you get the prize for the longest post I've ever seen. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

well, it's too bad I wasn't there for those discussions. I can think of a half dozen theories to balance that kind of opinion, starting with Wallerstein's argument that race is primarily a social construction designed to explain away differences in wealth and status (i.e., it produces less cognitive dissonance to think that that group of people is poor and unsuccessful because they are of a different race, than to think that they're poor and unsuccessful because someone has to be poor and unsuccessful for us to be well-off). probably I'm too soft-hearted, but I hate to see anyone get banned without being absolutely sure there's no other recourse. But since ArbCom seems to agree, and I doubt they would make that decision lightly, I'll just have to grant that there's more going on here than I can see.

and it wasn't that long of a post. --Ludwigs2 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

P.s. oh, and I lived in Baltimore for five years, which taught me volumes about race and prejudice. there's a park there with a statue of US Grant on the north side and a statue of RE Lee on the south side, which pretty much explains everything. --Ludwigs2 00:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can always use help at the article - but honestly, at this stsge we nee dmorehelp researaching articles and books than just editing ...Slrubenstein | Talk 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)