User talk:Elonka/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Indicating disagreement in WP space

Your thoughts would be welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Massive_revision. You made an eloquent argument that when there is a disagreement on guidance, we should indicate it; and I wonder if you have a way to phrase that as policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected consensus

Hi. Regarding your "{{ep|c}}" comment with the Coord template modification request, could you please elaborate on what lead you to the conclusion that there's no consensus? Do you disagree with my earlier comment on the same topic? --Para (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the following:

• A request to edit the protected template {{coord}} template was made by you, Para (talk · contribs)[1]
• The request was struck out within minutes by TheDJ (talk · contribs)[2]
• An objection was posted by Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) a couple hours later.[3]
• Dschwen (talk · contribs) disagreed with Pigsonthewing
• TheDJ re-enabled the request
• Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing) objected
• TheDJ replied to Mabbett
• Nihiltres (talk · contribs) declined the request
• Para asked to look again
• Mabbett disagreed again
• Cush (talk · contribs) agrees with Para
• Para accused Mabbett of wasting people's time
• Cush agrees with Para
• Occuli (talk · contribs) agrees with Mabbett
• Para replies
• Mabbett accuses Para of "partisan" descriptions which "are unhelpful and false". Perhaps not the most civil way of expressing things, but clearly shows that there's still disagreement.

In short, I saw no indication at Template talk:Coord#Modifications that there was consensus for a change. And since the {{coord}} template is in extremely wide use throughout Wikipedia, it is especially important that we be very careful and conservative in making changes. If you still feel that the change is good one, I encourage you to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, perhaps by inviting more editors into the discussion. If a clear consensus emerges, then the change can be re-requested. Hope that helps explain, --Elonka 21:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the discussion of the problem, before the suggested technical modification? --Para (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I tend to review only the actual section where the request has been made, I don't read everything on the page. --Elonka 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please do. The relevant part is the main section of that subsection, and the previous discussions linked from there. Very few people are interested of the technical details of fixing the template, when the most important issue is to get the problem in the template fixed. --Para (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

re: query

The tags are self-explanatory enough. I'm sure this guy can fix the article himself, or maybe you can since you know him. I stopped short of putting the article up for AFD, but it is certainly a candidate. --MrShamrock (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. It's an orphan for starters, as the tag reads. If you click the "what links here" button, you'll see that SimFarm is the only real article that links to it, the rest are disambig and user pages. I don't see a "clear assertion of notability." He's a guy that makes video games, big deal, so every video game developer automatically gets a wikipedia article? The "biography" is a narrative of his life story, like working at Toys R us and staying with his company when it was bought out by EA, hard to imagine less notable or encylopedic entries. It's a vanity page / resume to promote himself in his industry, plain and simple. Your dedication to your "friend" is admirable, and since you're an admin, you're probably just going to do what you want anyway. But this is article is neither encyclopedic or notable, it's not much more than an advertisement. --MrShamrock (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I apologize for offending you. I have put the aforementioned points on the talk page. I don't have an interest in rewriting an article that I feel has many inherent faults, including the notability of its subject. Perhaps I'll put it up for AFD and let others decide and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But again, i do apologize for offending you. And thanks for letting me know about the editting war stuff on the Bob Ross article. --MrShamrock (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ping

Keep an eye on this: Talk:Scientology#Error. I'm not sure, but it looks like that was a quote! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try, but to be honest, there are so many EP requests (edits to protected pages), that I tend not to watchlist them for very long. My practice is to review Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, and spot-check items on the list. When I see the section where the request was made, I review all the discussion in that particular section. If a request has been made and it looks immediately non-controversial, I take care of it on the spot. If it appears possibly controversial, but no one has objected to it for a few days, I go ahead and accomplish the edit. If there are people objecting to the change, I decline the request and tell them to work it out. In this case at Talk:Scientology#Error, if you feel that the change was incorrect, simply make another {{editprotected}} request back to the old wording, and if there's consensus for the change, it'll get put back as it was. --Elonka 18:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin actually :-). I had seen the request earlier (I'm trying to keep an eye on that category too), but didn't comply because there was no prior discussion (just the one user making the request). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha, sorry for misunderstanding. If you disagree with the change, I have no objection to you or any other admin reverting it. --Elonka 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unprotected now anyway... another editor replied as well, but it's unclear (to me) who put the quote in, and whether it was actually a quote. C'est la wiki :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If anybody knows...

... I thought to myself, you will know :) Please see my query at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Families. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

You have expressed an interest in my interactions with other editors in the past. Do you consider this a personal attack against me? Do you think that what I wrote (immediately above) provoked this/was written in a disruptive or inappropriate way? These are good faith questions: I'd appreciate an independent view here. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely ad hominem. I have left him a note. --Elonka 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, are you sure you understand what an ad hominem is? Sarcasm is not necessarily an ad hominem.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). [4]

Since I did not think that anyone would take my sarcastic comment as a true claim, and since I did not apply any such claim as proof that his argument is false; the statement is just a sarcasm, not an Ad Hominem. In fact, his edit is written so vaguely that I still have no idea what he was trying to say, and my edit was more a question than anything else.

I will admit that the comment is sarcastic, but it is not an attempt to discredit his argument be discrediting him. (It is probably less an Ad Hominem than the time when -- in the middle of a disagreement between us -- he offered sympathy for my limited ability to explain myself in English.) Actually I have spent a lot of time thinking about the problems posed by Ad Hominems on WP, and would not use such an argument. I consider it very kind of you to do a favor for a fellow administrator by defending against that mean, and sarcastic, Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but Ad Hominem "Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking ... rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim," seems to indicate your position is contrived. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli settlement

If you would be so kind as to comment on the recent reverting of my edits on this article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been casually watching, and hoping that the editors there would be able to work things out without requiring admin intervention. If you're sure it's an impasse though, I'll take a closer look and see what I can do. --Elonka 17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations#Was there a move?

Hey, I have replied to your concerns on the talk page there. Sorry about the delay in getting the bot back up after toolserver went down, but it cannot run without upto date databases on toolserver. —— nixeagle 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did reply there, if you respond quickish I might be able to reformat the output for you in relation to the first point about WP:POPUPS. —— nixeagle 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'm trying to debug and fix another bot as well. —— nixeagle 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 discussion

In the process of subpaging, I think a comment of yours was lost. Majorly talk 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bishzilla RFAR

Hi. Regarding Bishzilla, you wrote: "it is clear that she is not able to use administrator tools in a responsible manner, and she should therefore either resign or be forcibly de-sysopped". Would you care to explain what your criteria for forced desysopping are? (Should you wish to elaborate on criteria for voluntary resignation, please don't do so without a discussion about in what way any such criteria should be subject to arbitrary post-hoc redefinition, as that is how you have chosen to employ them yourself). Kosebamse (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My own standards are here. The core element of them, ever since my RfA, has been simple: If I abuse administrator tools, the community has a right to ask me to resign, and I will abide by the community consensus. The difference between me and Bish, is that I never abused administrator tools. Bish, however, used her tools to indefinitely block an active arbitrator. The block was overturned within minutes, and the strong community consensus is that the block was completely inappropriate. And even if, by some extraordinary stretch of the imagination, the block might have been appropriate, Bish should not have been the one to place it, because she was not uninvolved. Her actions were wrong, by every possible metric. --Elonka 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your elucidation. I note that you have precisely avoided discussing what I explicitly asked you not to avoid. A very significant part of the community has asked you to resign, and you have refused to abide by that demand or by your own commitment. As someone who has post-hoc tweaked her own standards to avoid unpleasant consequences, you are in no position whatsoever to publish behavioral standards for others. Kosebamse (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not about me, this is about a clear abuse of administrator tools by Bish. BTW, Kosebamse (talk · contribs), I find it very interesting that with everything else going on, the only person that you are choosing to talk to, is me. Why is that? --Elonka 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad 1, it is about you as well as Bish, because you have set an undesirable example by lawyering yourself around your own standards when it came to resignation from adminship. Ad 2, you are free to find interesting whatever you like. If you take an honest interest in my opinions, I shall be glad to discuss anything you like at my talk page. Subjects suggested: honesty, decency, Machiavellism, and the social dynamics of Wikipedia. Kosebamse (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No bots, please; we're Wikipedians

No thanks, I have not installed a bot on my usertalk because I may want to keep some old messages, as I have done at the top of the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and user check?

We may need a user check on WillC and an unnamed user 96.239.140.104, who are instantly reverting my reverts this date of their inappropriate tags attached to articles on Sierra Club and Southern Poverty Law Center. It seems they object to previously published information beging posted that links three candidates in the 2004 Sierra Club Board of Directors election to two anti-immigrant groups. Their use of tags for independent citations (for financial information provided by the group cited) and for "weasel words" are inappropriate under the circumstances and disruptive. Motivation may be white supremacist affiliations. Most recent items in article histories today. Welcome back... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not user:WillC. On the other hand, User:Mervyn Emrys is clearly the same person as User:Dr. Perfessor and maybe should have his own user check since he is requesting one on good faith editors who are trying to keep his heavy POV pushing in check. Mervyn Emrys should be warned for personal attacks for "motivation may be white supremacist affiliations". Indeed, I voted for Obama. The Southern Poverty Law Center's self-serving promotional material fails WP:RS for any claims about that group, and fails WP:COI regarding anything about the 2004 Sierra Club election since they were one of the outside groups trying to interfere in that election. Emrys' edits do not give the impression that he is here in good faith, just here to promote his own POV. We are trying to keep POV out of these articles and keep them grounded in verifiable fact. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am WillC and only WillC. Mervyn is way out of line reporting people merely for disagreeing with him. WillC (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

All my edits on the Sierra Club and Southern Poverty Law Center articles are factual and I provided references to reliable sources, whereas these users do not. Their efforts are apparently directed towards making their POV more palatable to an uninformed audience. One has neither an active user page nor a talk page. The other is pushing confederate flag POV. Perhaps a user check should be done on all recent unnamed users on these two pages? There is clearly a pattern of edit warring on both. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are neither factual - they are conspiracy theories and personal attacks - nor are they sourced to reliable, third party sources that lack conflict of interest. You are the the one adding POV to these articles which had been neutral and stable for a long time before you started editing them. I'm trying to take the POV back out of these articles. You also have posted personal attacks on myself (using "POS" in an edit summary, accusation above of "motivation may be white supremacist affiliations") and posted numerous derogatory statements on people like John Tanton which are against Wikipedia policy in regards living persons and should be deleted. You say you are not here for the politics - then don't make heavily political edits. This is your final warning to please stop. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, POS was a typo for POV. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be more believable if S were anywhere near V on the keyboard. Maybe POW would be better, though I'm not sure why it would be relevant to call 96.239.etc a prisoner of war. arimareiji (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But on the other hand, 96.239.etc, phrasing like "this is your final warning" is a Really Bad Idea. Unduly inflammatory, and inappropriate unless you're an admin - which AFAIK is not possible for IP accounts. Though I could be wrong, you might be the first IP admin ever and I didn't get the news yet. arimareiji (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about assume good faith for my correction above? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am; that's why I was speculating on how a second typo might have fouled your good-faith efforts to explain a perfectly innocent first typo. I call people prisoners of war all the time, though I can't recall ever calling someone a "point of view." POV editor maybe, but not a POV. arimareiji (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Final request" then? :) May the lowly IP politely request an audience with an Admin for the purpose of humbly petitioning for reversion of the above articles to their pre-Mervyn Emrys/Dr. Perfessor state and warning given unto Mervyn to stop inserting his own biased narrative (or that of Morris Dees) as if it were fact? 96.239.140.104 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have gone with "the last time I politely ask before I have to start the dispute resolution process," myself - but I've always been prone to logorrhea. 'Twas just a friendly indirect reminder to keep it civil if you want to be taken seriously. arimareiji (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil is as civil does..Mervyn has not been particularly civil himself. Starting with his use of the terms "anti-immigrant" and "hate group" and his inability to assume good faith. Use of those terms is on the exact same level as using the N-word, and they have no place in polite discourse nor a neutral encyclopedia article. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Confederate flag POV? how so? on the SPLC page? wow. WillC (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: my edits were factual and well-documented with reliable sources. Deleting the references I provided doesn't change that. And it matters little if the unnamed user (who has no active talk page) thinks those references are not reliable. They are, and others will verify that fact. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note regarding at least one of the disputed edits on the SPLC talk page. Perhaps that would be a better battleground than here? arimareiji (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm informed on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by users above "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [5] [6]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also informed that a link to an audited financial on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source, so it seems the objections of two editors in that regard has no substance. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

edit warring on New Antisemitism

OK, I'll back off, but you're incorrect that I am not participating in talk. I have been and shall continue to be a participant on the talk page with respect to the image issues; the current discussion is about why we need two of the same image on the page rather than one; the person I reverted was adding a third image. The only purpose seems disruptive especially given the user's edit summary; coupled with that, it's objectively a terrible photo, lighting so bad you can barely even see what it purports to be a photo of. But I'll raise these things in the discussion. Thanks. csloat (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rachel Corrie

I appreciate your effort to help resolve the archive issue at Talk:Rachel Corrie, which is grossly overswollen. But we're already making slow progress toward agreement that some issues can finally be closed and archived. Also, part of the reason for the slow progress is that there are editors on the page who I'm trying to convince NOT to treat archives as a Flash drive to cut and paste to/from, but rather to start new sections instead. I'm afraid this would aggravate it.
If it's not below at least 200k by 31 Jan, please accept my invitation to wreak havoc and hack it down to such a size or smaller. But at least for now, can you give us a little more time? Thank you, arimareiji (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I took too long composing my comment. Commenting first would have been better, but I sometimes (often) take awhile to write. I thought it would be prophylactic to make the edit before anyone else added material which would have made the undo more complicated. arimareiji (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask why you didn't respond to my request, then added MiszaBot anyway? I'm not sure why this is such an urgent problem that it can't wait for a more peaceful resolution. arimareiji (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the talkpage itself. The only reply was someone concurring with the plan, so I waited a day and then added the bot. It should really be set at a 7-day cutoff, but I set it for 14-days for now, and then we can tweak it later. If you'd like to make a list of "to do" items, have you looked into using the {{todo}} template, or adding a list at "./TODO"? This would be much more efficient than maintaining a 400K page. --Elonka 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my specific suggestion, you asserted that it needs to start "soon." I took that as concurrence that if the problem wasn't resolved in the time frames I had asked for here and on that talk page, you would then act. arimareiji (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon? You made one unannounced edit to add a bot, and asserted consensus based on no one responding to "the page needs to be reduced in size soon." I had previously asked you to give me some time; your response was the above. I reverted that one edit after explaining why. How is that continual? Your threatening objection to my daring to revert you even once speaks far more of WP:OWN than anything I've done. arimareiji (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit was an archive which made no effort at consensus, and went against established discussion on the page. Your second edit was not an archive, it was addition of a bot with only a nominal effort at discussion. If you'll note, I'm asking to see if it's possible to get consensus for your proposed method - I'm not blindly opposing you in the way that you're blindly opposing me.

You pejoratively note that I've spent a lot of time at the Rachel Corrie page. Yes, I have - I've put in a lot of effort to trying to get the worst of the POV out, and it's an uphill battle. Have you considered that maybe that means I understand the dynamics better than someone who charges in with the best of intentions but little understanding of the history?

I'm proud of the results - perhaps the best reflection of them is that I get accused of POV by both sides for trimming their rhetorical excesses. Compare the page now to the page a month ago, and you might actually agree with me that it has improved. The warring on the talk page has been decreasing more and more, and I don't want to see it flare up again because of something as minor as the current size of the page. As you pointed out by graciously showing me that the page versions are stored in the history, the current size of a talk page is not a life-threatening issue in terms of database storage.

If Kasaalan and PalestineRemembered agree that the bot can be added immediately, I'll happily concede the point - I'm working towards the same goal as you, though we differ in our beliefs of the necessary time frame. We'll both be happy. But if not, I think it would be grossly counterproductive to start a real edit war. Our current argument is a trifle by comparison to what's gone before. arimareiji (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, can I ask why this is such an urgent matter? You've known my proposed time frame since you first edited the page, and you still say "24 hours" before you're empowered to do whatever you want. You're not being "lenient," you're simply reiterating the same demands. If you actually look at the page, you'll see the obvious reason why I chose the 18th - many of the threads pass 30 days at that point, and no one has (yet) objected to 30 days as an ultimate deadline. And if you look at the page you'll also see that I'm actively trying to get people to agree that threads they've claimed should be kept can be closed out. That's a far better solution, I believe, than announcing that It Has Been Decided From On High.

Until I started pushing the point to get material archived, no one was even trying. So I'm not sure what basis you have for believing that someone has suffered Great Injury that requires you to come up with The Solution. Nor do I understand your basis for implying that other admins will coincidentally decide to come visit the page in the next 24 hours and reach the same conclusion as you - it sounds more like canvassing.

I genuinely hope that Kasaalan and PalestineRemembered show up and agree with you. It would mean this rather absurd argument would be over, and that I can stop spending time trying to get people to agree to put issues to rest. But if not, may I ask what basis you would have for insisting on "tomorrow isn't good enough, it must be today!" even though that would mean consensus would be strongly against you among the parties concerned? "My way or the highway" isn't the Wikipedia spirit, when there's neither harm engendered in waiting nor a violation of any policy except your own perspective. arimareiji (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A particularly apt quote I saw on someone's page just now: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." If it's possible to achieve a peaceful resolution in two days, why is it necessary to force through your own personal solution in one day and then start handing out punishments to anyone who disagrees - when there's no compelling good to be gained by doing so? arimareiji (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

May I inquire as to your current intentions? Given that you haven't responded, I take it that you intend to enforce your ultimatum. If so, any efforts I make will only hinder you and therefore I won't make them. But if not, I would like to know so that I can continue the process of trying to move material to archive in a consensus-driven fashion. arimareiji (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to start archiving, that would be excellent. Whether you manually archive or setup a bot, I have no preference, as long as something is done to start shrinking the page from its 400K+ size. --Elonka 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't really answer my question. You made a 24-hour ultimatum, and if you intend to enforce it then any efforts on my part would be wasted. Likewise for suspending the ultimatum, only to reassert "you're not going fast enough" at 36 hours, etc. arimareiji (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added an archive bot to the page which will auto-archive any threads which have had no activity for two weeks. Looking at page traffic, 7-days would probably be a better cutoff, but we can start high and then tweak down. If there's a desire to keep any of the threads on the live page, just add a reply to them to show that the discussions are still active. --Elonka 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I find it regrettable that you felt it necessary to enforce your ultimatum with only a token attempt at discussion. I repeatedly asked for clemency and for you to bend even slightly on your demands, and you did not bend at any point - only reiterate that your opinion trumps consensus, and threaten sanctions unless I immediately complied with your decision. There was no clear policy violation, only a demand on your part that your chosen solution be immediately implemented instead of waiting one more day. arimareiji (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

May I request an explanation of (or, preferably, point me to the policy on) archiving articles such as this? While not directly comparable, ANI is currently 410K, AN is 93K, RSN has just been archived down to 238K. Many TalkPages have been chopped to a size I find irritating - sometimes by editors who don't always seem to contribute very usefully. It's not happened to this one, yet, which is still at 331K, but I fear it might, and the article will be poorer for it. PR^talk 09:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You got mail

— Sebastian 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Regarding this warning, I'd like to offer a suggestion. WP:UNINVOLVED states that "if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be alleged, it may still be better to pass [enforcement] to others where possible." In the interest of reducing conflict, it might be useful to have another admin or two scrutinize the situation and provide feedback regarding sanctions. For instance, Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) has previously managed disputes involving many of the same editors and might have useful perspective. In any case, if the need for sanctions is real, then it should be straightforward to demonstrate to an outside admin. In this case, given concerns that have been raised and that are not unique to Orangemarlin, the extra step is probably worth the trouble to avoid unintentionally worsening rather than improving the situation.

Additionally, if you regard Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) as acting particularly counterproductively, then it may be worth contacting User:Jpgordon. I'm not sure whether Orangemarlin remains formally under his mentorship; regardless, as OM formerly entered into voluntary mentorship with him, involving Jpgordon might be a productive next step here, rather than invoking discretionary sanctions.

In your warning, you accuse Orangemarlin of "threats and false statements". I'm a bit concerned, because the diffs you provide both link to instances where Orangemarlin has criticized you - specifically, your ability to use the tools from a position of neutrality. The first cited diff is somewhat intemperate in tone, while the second cited diff appears to be critical of you but not in breach of any behavioral policy or guideline. In any case, it would seem inappropriate for you to invoke discretionary sanctions against an editor citing, in part, the fact that he has criticized you. Even if these were out-and-out personal attacks, it's generally a bad idea for an admin to sanction someone for incivility directed at themselves - a best practice codified here by ArbCom.

Additionally, your warning accuses Orangemarlin of "ignoring cautions". Based on the diffs you cite, I see him repeatedly removing your warnings from his talk page ([7], [8], [9], [10]), which is generally considered an allowable activity and seems odd grounds for a sanction. On the other hand, "repeated annoying and unwanted contacts" are listed as a form of harassment in the relevant Wikipedia policy. While I'm sure it's not your intention to harass Orangemarlin, repeatedly posting warnings to his talk page (I count 4 in the last 2 days), in the face of obvious evidence that he doesn't wish ongoing contact there, is unlikely to improve or de-escalate the situation. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At this time, Orangemarlin is not under any sanctions, he has simply been notified of the pseudoscience case. Thanks for the comments though, I'll keep them in mind going forward. --Elonka 00:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, about your comment to Jim62sch [11], I see a pattern here. You have an obvious history at that article and at other pseudoscience articles for many months now of taking a stand on pseudoscience content and views, meaning you are clearly too involved a party to be so heavy-handed with these two editors. You're far too involved to be leaving comments that read like threats, or protecting that article, as you did last month. People did notice that, and it doesn't reflect well on your claim that you're a neutral party simply enforcing Wikipedia policy. Looking over your activities at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts it strikes me you are ignoring the previous arbitration ruling in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience along with Levine2112. Perhaps it's time to take the matter back to the arbcom, but it would be better for the community and you were you to stop trying to force a new interpretation and simply just accept the standing ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and get Levine2112 to do so as well. There's a limit to how much disruption over previously settled matters the community is willing to put up with, particularly around things like pseudoscience. There are better uses of your time and those you are tying up there. How about moving along? FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I was a bit confused by your statement about pseudoscience content though, since I really have no opinion either way, as long as policies are being adhered to, so I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say I'm "taking a stand on pseudoscience content". As for Levine2112 (talk · contribs), if you'll review his talkpage you can see that I and other administrators have left him numerous warnings (example). When you say "get Levine2112 to do so as well", what exactly do you recommend? --Elonka 03:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, I will add my voice to those expressing concern. You have a history of involvement with the pseudoscience articles; if you truly do not care, then I strongly suggest you de-watchlist them and move on to something else. Your Notification of OM appears to be skirting very close to, if not actually violating, misuse of your position. Only an admin can add a name to that list, and you have added OM's name, someone with whom you've had a long running series of disputes. I recommend you remove your addition of his name to the "notification" list as far too involved to have made that determination, and leave it to others to add him, or Levine2112, or yourself, or anyone else if it is determined there is an issue. You seem to be using the ArbCom case to win a content dispute, and that is distinctly not desirable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In an early form of my evidence to the fringe science ArbCom case, I made a reference to administrators who appeared to become adversarial towards editors representing mainstream science. I later removed this, because the ArbCom seemed to be about very general issues concerning fringe science and not about particular individuals. You are probably aware, from comments by multiple editors, that your own involvement in policing science-related articles has been problematic, mainly because it gave the impression of ignoring intellectual issues of content, giving the appearance that fringe POV pushers were being favoured. This would clearly be completely against the basic purposes of this encyclopedia. For a while at least you seemed to have taken note of this and backed off from your approach. I wonder whether you could please take the hint now? Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• (moved from talk:killerchihuahua)

KC, hi, just wanted to point you at this ArbCom motion? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity. When one admin is acting in an ArbCom enforcement capacity, others should not reverse any of their actions. I welcome your comments at my talkpage, but please don't modify my posts, thanks.[12] Also, please be aware that there's a lot of negative gossip flying around, so I encourage you to be very careful about sifting through actual evidence. For example, some editors are trying to intimidate me away from a disputed page, by claiming that I've been involved in content disputes there. But it's demonstrably untrue, as I never been involved in a content dispute at that page, or with any of the editors. So just because they say I'm involved, does not mean it's true.  :) Hope that helps clarify things, --Elonka 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

it clarifies that you are conflating reverse with remove unecessary negative content from, and that you are persisting in the deulusion that you're not involved. I tried to be gentle and civil with you, Elonka, but you just aren't getting it. You're involved, and you're breaking the rules. I didn't come to this conclusion due to anything but reading your past contribs. And why on earth are you linking to that ArbCom diff? You seem quite fond of it; it is not however a panacea which means you can cite an ArbCom ruling and it makes all of your edits magically "right". KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, you got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you. Accusing anyone without a diff violates WP:NPA. That said, Elonka, I really urge you to take a deep breath. Why can't you just follow WP:DR and WP:DISENGAGE? No individual administrator is so important that Wikipedia would grind to a halt if they just backed out from a certain area for a while. — Sebastian 19:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sebastian.  :) And don't worry, despite the above comments (some of which are from people that I have warned in the past), I'm not involved with the content disputes here. However, if you or any other uninvolved admins would like to try and wade in and help sort out the dispute, your presence would be appreciated. Just add your name to Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Administrators monitoring this page, and help keep an eye on the discussions. :) Be warned that it's a bit of a minefield, and actually implementing sanctions is probably going to be a bumpy ride, but having more admins there would definitely be helpful! --Elonka 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist, but I can't promise anything. I'm currently quite swamped. While I enjoy being invited to more than one I can do, I am also sorry to turn down such requests. — Sebastian 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, are you saying, as you seem to be on several places, that you feel that if you have "warned" someone in the past, you can discard any concerns they might express about you as some kind of vengeful action on their part? Please clarify this, because it really does appear that way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I never discard concerns, and "vengeful" is a strong word. I do listen carefully to the concerns of everyone who posts. However, when an administrator places a warning, block, or ban, it's routine to receive criticisms from the blockee, along with all the blockee's friends. It's very rare that someone who was blocked or banned is ever going to thank the administrator and say, "Gee, good call, I really needed to be blocked!"  ;) So I tend to take some concerns with a grain of salt. There are also obvious factions in some of the ArbCom enforcement areas: In some areas, if an administrator attempts to warn or restrict one editor, a half-dozen of their friends may jump up to criticize the administrator. Which is fine, they're entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean that the block (or warning) was invalid. The opinions of the friends are valued, and I appreciate that they're taking the time to comment, but that doesn't mean that they should be considered as "neutral, uninvolved" voices. On the other hand, I do understand that to someone who's not involved with the disputes, and doesn't recognize the names and the various factions and cliques, it might look odd. An outside observer may see an admin's talkpage with all these voices offering criticism, and think, "Wow, that admin is just ignoring all the critiques!" But looking deeper, it's important to tell the difference between involved comments and uninvolved comments. Regardless of the source, rest assured though that I do still read everything, and do my best to take all the concerns onboard. --Elonka 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That is very good to hear; thank you for alleviating my concerns about that. Food for thought: has it occurred to you that people have other editors talk pages watchlisted, and may learn about something only due to your posting there? It may not be "rushing to the defense of friends" so much as "learning about a situation". KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, yes. "Friends" may have been misconstrued. A better way to describe it might have been, "People who have a history of editing in the same locations as this editor, engaging in the same disputes, nearly always on the same side as this editor." Would that be more clear? --Elonka 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It would have been different, but just as negatively biased. Jim has a point: you're calling them a cabal and/or meatpuppets, just using descriptive phrases and not the specific terms. Stick to "editors not previously involved" and you'll be accurate and not speculating on relationships or motives. KillerChihuahua^?!?

(ri)Why not just use the tried (tired, trite?) and overused "cabal" as that is really what you mean. Unless, that is, you think friends is in some way pejorative. Doesn't your foot hurt yet? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and discretionary sanctions

Elonka, please disengage and discontinue the disruptive behaviour you have started at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts talk page. You are supremely involved in the dispute, and your actions have been disruptive to editors and to the talk page, while also being a violation of WP:TALK. If you do invoke your arbitrary sanctions under the guise of the AE measures, then this will be a misuse of administrator tools under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and the associated disruption. This is an attempt at the first step in dispute resolution. Verbal chat 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I stand by what I have said, and that Elonka is being disruptive and is too involved with editors here to enforce these sanctions. Any other administrator would be an improvement. Due to unforeseen personal reasons I am having to cut down wiki time for a while, so I cannot pursue this myself as far as I'd like. I broadly agree with Crohnie on the List of PS talk page. Verbal chat 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please give evidence for how you believe that I am "supremely involved in the dispute"? Because to my knowledge, I have never been involved in a content dispute in this topic area, or with any of the editors. All of my actions have been as an administrator. --Elonka 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On a matter of principle, 'uninvolved admin' status cannot be impeached by an administrator's prolonged involvement in taking administrative decisions in a particular area. Generally, if you have to go deep into the histories to research an administrator's article-space contributions and make a detailed case, then you probably should not have bothered. If an administrator is involved as an editor, it's normally quite obvious. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Think ancillary. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the OM edits Elonka highlighted - now I guess twinkle was used but edit summaries were used to explain changes, which for me ameliorates things. Was there an etiquette discussed somewhere about twinkle (with edit summariesexplanations) on this matter? If not to date, then this should happen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue on some of the edits wasn't just that he was using Twinkle, but that he was simply reverting other editors' changes, without engaging in discussion at the talkpage. There was also at least one place where he used Twinkle to revert a change as "vandalism" even though it wasn't, and another case where he used Twinkle to revert, and then immediately use it to request protection on his version, but again, without any talkpage discussion. (diffs available upon request) --Elonka 21:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, on its own page twinkle is seen as a tool which has outgrown its original intent with options etc. Is there a page on its use, and does it discuss the use of edit summaries? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If we sanctioned everyone who rv'd w/o an edit summary we'd have three editors left.

Ah, but what cracks me up is that ZElonka seems to be trying to establish a pattern (badly done though that establishment process was) and yet finds patterns re her behaviour to be risable. But, that's just my opinion. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, occasional reverts without an edit summary, or with only a simple summary, are done all the time. However, when a page is in the throes of a major dispute, it is better to engage in talkpage discussion rather than just do "drive-by" reverts. Especially if there is already an active discussion on a disputed article's talkpage, to have an editor who is not involved in the discussion just come along, revert a good-faith edit, and then disappear, is fairly disruptive. --Elonka 22:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"the throes of a major dispute" is a perception. Note my previous comments on that concept. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I moved your spa analysis of me away from one single comment and placed it after my name in the list of names. I did this because given that I have signed many posts, singling out the one you did made it look, or could make it look like you were trying to prejudice the vote by trying to undermine that comment and that comment alone. By putting it after my name in the list it not only makes my spahood much clearer to all on that page, it also leaves you less open to attack on the basis of vote manipulation by defamation.

In any event, if you are going to continue to add this tag to comments of mine I would ask that you keep a note of where they are since, when I am no longer a spa (i.e., in a few days or so) I will be asking for you to remove each and every one you have added.

Thank you for the continuing warmness of the welcome to Wiki you are extending. Jigsaws are for losers ( ; Landed little marsdon (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan Novak (Writer)

Sorry abt the Rdr Jan Novak (Writer), which i created (along with another version) to satisfy copies elsewhere of someone's mis-formatting of the lk that i fixed. It was careless, and i should have been more alert that it was a rdlk. In any case i went ahead & did a WP:TPFR entry for them, so thanks for (& good riddance to) what you del'd.
--Jerzy•t 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, we handle this kind of routine cleanup all the time. No big deal. :) --Elonka 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor list at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

You have been mentioned at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

*Facepalm* oh no not this **** again... – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Meaning what, precisely? When one is known to be a frequent visitor to the principal's office there's usually a good reason. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Eldereft. I've posted a reply, though it took a few tries because of the edit conflicts. --Elonka 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notification

You expressing an opinion about an ArbCom ruling, on which several people have clearly disagreed with on your interpretation, is hardly "warning" me of anything, Elonka.[13][14] I assure you, I do not consider myself "warned" so much as informed that you have developed a unique interpretation of an ArbCom ruling. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A question for you please

Related discussions:

• Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#List of editors
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement
• WP:ANI#Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (archived)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log (closed)

Shot_Info has commented that these lists that you have made would prevent editors from supporting or commenting if another recall would occur. Is this true? You have put me on your lists as an active editor. Chiropractic comes to mind as does QuackWatch which I believe both have me listed as an involved or semi-involved editor. I haven't looked at them for awhile so what status I am listed under I am unsure. But anyways, do these list cause the exclusion of the editors listed from making comments? I mean would any comments from any editor be ignored or exluded as being in conflict with you in anyway? Thank you for taking the time to explain. I am not in anyway suggesting another RFC or anything like it, I am just looking for clarification. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking.  :) To answer your questions: No, the lists have nothing to do with recall. The lists are simply tools that are used in managing disputes on a very few battleground articles. The lists do not in any way exclude editors from making comments. The lists are just to provide a quick-reference to indicate (1) which editors are currently participating on an article; (2) Which editors have already been formally notified about potential ArbCom sanctions; and (3) Which editors are currently under active sanctions such as a ban or other editing restriction. There's no subjective nature to the lists, it's pretty simple: Someone has either been formally notified or not, someone is either under a ban or not. The only time that someone would be prevented from making comments, would be if they were under a formal ban from the talkpage. In which case the ban would be listed next to their name on the list while the ban was active, and then when the ban expired, it would be removed. Check the history of User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, and you'll see how restrictions appeared and disappeared off the list.

As for why there's so much chaos right now, there are a lot of hysterical charges being thrown around, that have absolutely nothing to do with reality. People accusing me of using admin tools on articles where I'm heavily involved as an editor, accusations that I'm making capricious blocks to get rid of opponents, that my blocks are immediately overturned, etc. etc. None of which is true. I've never blocked or even banned an opponent in a content dispute, ever. And I've never had a block overturned, ever. So all the accusations are just a bunch of hot air, though I'm unclear how much is hysteria, how much is lynch mob mentality, how much is people repeating gossip without checking the truth for themselves, how much is people confusing me with someone else, or how much is flat out manipulative false statements, to try and intimidate an admin away from a dispute. Each time the false charges come up, I or others ask for diffs, but the requests are always ignored, or if diffs are produced, they're of nothing related. For example, I'll ask for diffs of proof that I've edited an article, and someone will come back with a bunch of diffs of other people saying I've edited an article, but no diffs of me actually, you know, editing the article.  ;) So, thanks very much for taking the time to actually ask me for my side of things. If you (or anyone else) has questions, please feel free to ask.  :) --Elonka 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, a philosophical question: what is reality? Isn't it merely a construct based upon perceptions and the results of internally influenced analyses? In other words, your reality is at odds with the reality of a significant number of editors (some of them admins). Of course, this is somewhat natural as we all have moments when we tend to see what we want to see as subjectivity is much easier than objectivity. That being said, however, their comes a time when the the reality shared by a significant number of others outweighs our own reality.

In my case, for example, I disagreed with the findings of my RfAr, but, realising that the reality of others was taking precedence I have abided by the findings. Perhaps, you too should consider taking a similar step and perhaps decide to bow out gracefully. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You invited people to ask you for clarification before reaching conclusions. Can I ask whether it's correct that you added Mathsci to your list only because he posted to the talk page objecting to it? [15] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The list was updated to include all editors who were offering multiple comments on the talkpage. Mathsci, Verbal, and Bduke were all added on that basis. It's an equal opportunity list, no one is excluded. Being on the list is not an indication that someone is about to be sanctioned -- it's just a tool to include the names of all participating editors, and classify which ones were under ArbCom sanctions, and which ones weren't. The list was also added on that page after a comment by someone else (Dave souza, I think), who had asked that a list be provided. --Elonka 19:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, it was intended to be a list of admins and editors who were involved in some capacity in the article or in discussing the article on its talk page. To add someone to the list simply because they object to the list is wrong. In fact, these lists are not a good idea in general, in my view, because they're likely to stir up drama, when the point of admin intervention in these articles is to calm things down. Adding the names of anyone who happens to object on that talk page, rather than (say) on this one, is guaranteed to cause ill-feeling. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add someone to the list because they objected to the list, I was simply trying to keep the list updated with all editors who were participating on the talkpage. As for the use of the lists, they have been used effectively in multiple other locations to calm longrunning disputes which involve a large number of editors, such as at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, Muhammad al-Durrah, Quackwatch, and Chiropractic. Perhaps it's not the best solution for this particular pseudosciences page, but if anyone has better ideas to get the article out of its state of current indefinite page protection, I encourage them to step forward. The only reason that I decided to try helping with the page in the first place, is because no other admin was willing to try and act as a neutral presence in such a contentious area. --Elonka 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't add Mathsci because he objected to the list, can you please show me the diffs that did cause you to add him? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What I usually do on these lists is to look not at the actual statements, but at the history of the talkpage and the article. When a list is new (as this one was), sometimes I don't get it perfect on the first try, so I try to tweak it as I go along. Periodically I re-scan to see if new names have entered the discussion or the editing of the article. If I see a mismatch between editing and talkpage, I may offer a caution. For example, if someone is just showing up to revert an article, but is not participating in discussion at the talkpage, I may post a note at that editor's talkpage with a reminder that they need to be engaging in discussion when they make controversial edits. If they keep reverting without discussion, I'll give them a formal notification about the ArbCom case, and if they keep reverting after that, I'll ban or block. If you look at the history of my Hungary/Slovak page, you can see how these bans and blocks flowed in and out. There's also a long list on the talkpage there, including a link to a thread at WP:AN where I specifically asked the community for opinions on using such a page, and the unanimous response was positive.[16] --Elonka 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, though it doesn't really answer the question. Either you added Mathsci because he objected to the list, or you added him because of something else. If it was something else, I'd appreciate seeing a diff. If it was because of his objections to the list, and you simply made a mistake by doing that, because you didn't look at the posts, why didn't you remove his name as soon as you realized? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that if you take the time to actually look at the history of Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, you'll see that things have been moving rather quickly. I've been trying to update the list, but others have been deleting the list, then it gets restored, then deleted, back and forth, so for now I'm just leaving it alone. I recommend adding the page to your watchlist, and you'll see how much of a battleground the page has been, for quite some time now. It's a very complex situation, with a lot of editors and a lot of chaos. Which is why I think other admins were avoiding the page, and why I was using a list technique to try and get a handle on what was going on. The list was a tool to try and clarify where everyone stood, in as transparent a manner as possible. --Elonka 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those things are all true. However, none of them answer the very simple and reasonable question SlimVirgin has now asked 4 times: on what basis did you add Mathsci to the list? Since you accuse people, above, of making vague, unsubstantiated claims rather than supplying diffs, this might be a good opportunity to model the behavior you'd like to see from others. It seems reasonable to expect an admin exercising broad discretion to answer these sorts of direct questions about their actions - particularly since you've added an editor with whom you've had a history of major interpersonal disputes to a list of users under your administrative supervision. If it was a mistake, just say so - we all make mistakes. Admitting them rarely weakens one's moral authority. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I added Mathsci's name to the list because he had posted multiple times on the talkpage. I added the names of all multiple posters on the page, to the list. If I missed any, please let me know, but I'm not aware of any. Having a name on the list was not a badge of shame, it was simply a list of editors, as could be compiled from looking at the history of the talkpage. To try and say "Well, some editors should be added because they were posting in this thread, and some shouldn't have been added because they were posting in a different thread," was not the purpose at all of the list. The list was intended to include all editors, regardless of which threads that they were posting in. --Elonka 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. "Multiple" here means "two". Elonka is misrepresenting me and has somewhat undercut her own case for the list. A large number of administrators have already cautioned Elonka that she seems to have made a mistake; she seems to be taking no notice of her peers. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What would be the point, from an arbitration-enforcement perspective, of keeping a list of editors who had posted to that page only to object to your list? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is fluid, and is not in stone. Names show up on the list for awhile, and then disappear. Restrictions such as blocks and bans are listed, and then whey expire, they are removed. If an editor (such as Mathsci) never posted anything else on the page, his name would eventually be removed from the list. The list is just a tool to identify the editors that are active on the page at a given point in time. --Elonka 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. My question is what would be the point, from the perspective of enforcing ArbCom rulings, of identifying the editors who are objecting to your list? The reason I'm asking this repeatedly is that you're being accused of being involved, and it's precisely actions like this that make you involved. You're taking action that causes other editors to turn up with objections, and you then use their arrival as justification for adding their names to your list, even though the only reason they are there is you, and they're people you've been in dispute with before. That is, you are causing the thing you go on to report as though you had nothing to do with it. Therefore, if you had a legitimate reason for posting those names to that page, I'd appreciate hearing it — a reason other than "the list is fluid, names came and went ..." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Mathsci had been posting on the nature of pseudoscience articles before Elonka added him/her to the list. I know because I responded to one of the posts and got a reply. It's therefore not true that Mathsci had only posted to criticize Elonka or the list.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was invited to give evidence to the ArbCom fringe science case if that is what you mean. The views I expressed there in my evidence seem to have been in tune with the principles of the current ArbCom committee; I deliberately did not criticize individual editors or administrators, because even now I think it would serve no purpose. What User:Landed little marsdon has written is a non-sequitur. As Elonka wrote on his talk page, he is probably a sockpuppet, possibly evading a block or ban. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely my concern. It looks as though when certain editors with certain views, or editors who've previously had a run-in with Elonka, arrive to object to the list, they're instantly regarded as "involved," and therefore list-worthy — even if they've never edited the article or commented on the article on talk — because they and Elonka have a history elsewhere. That's exactly what makes Elonka look like one of the partisans, which is why people feel uncomfortable about her acting as an admin there. Her presence on that page is causing things to happen that she uses to justify her presence even further. It's almost a definition of involvement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

SV, I think you might want to reread what I wrote. Mathsci was involved on the talk page. S/he was involved in a discussion with me. Check out the history.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He arrived at the page only to object to Elonka's posting of the list. This was his first edit. [17] Elonka suggests above that the same applies to two other editors as well. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He may or may not have arrived intending to only object to Elonka, but he also made a point, in the very post you cite, about other editors and about pseudoscience articles. He then went on to make several more posts about pseudoscience BEFORE Elonka added him to the list. It is therefored hard to see how you can still claim that Elonka only added him because of his objection rather than because of his obvious involvement on content matters. Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, re your first reply to SV: it was not Dave, unless you consider this to be such a request, although to do so would be to stretch language to its most subjective limits. Note too, that Dave considers you too involved.

Re your second reply: others have stepped forward, although your list is proving to be detrimental to the possibility of someone else fully taking charge. I'm not sure which part of this is difficult to comprehend, but either myself and 20 other editors are explaining the concept poorly or WP:DENSE is applicable. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of making a list of not just every editor who has edited an article, but every editor who has edited the talk page as well? Isn't that information perfectly clear (and in a manner that is inherently free of bias, spin, or drama) on the respective histories of each page? I just don't get the enthusiasm for lists like this, nor do I see how they help anything. And frankly, I think since users see being put on such a list as being a negative thing, it has a chilling effect on new participants joining either the editing of the article or even joining the discussion - does anyone really want to leave a comment if the consequence is getting slapped with a label? --Minderbinder (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You may have hit upon the motive. Ah, but what do I know? I can only look at things from my own version of logic. Some of us have other versions of logic. (No, I really don't expect a response from Elonka as I seem to be on the PITA-ignore list (that one's probably on her PC).

But seriously, one has to wonder how so many perceive the same thing re the GBR list. Alas, we're all, no doubt, deluded, and wont to raising "hysterical charges". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons to nazis; multiple references to a "chilling effect"; and accusations of mental illness. All over a list of names. Hysteria sounds about right.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Minderbinder, have you looked at the history of that particular page? I would argue that it's not "perfectly clear". On some disputed pages, it's a simple enough matter to scan the history. On Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts though, the dispute is far more complex than that. Over the last week alone, the talkpage received several hundred posts from many different editors. And that's just in one (1) week! So regardless of where a "list of editors" is kept, I'm still going to have a list, because my memory's just not good enough to keep everyone straight otherwise. Let's also remember that during the recent ArbCom elections, that one of the common threads was that the community wanted more transparency in arbitration discussions, to keep things on-wiki whenever possible, to maintain transparency. At least when a list of editors is publicly visible, everyone knows where they stand. --Elonka 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

LDM, the reference (and I only see one reference, not multiple) to Chilling effect (term) seems completely apt and not the least bit hysterical. Where are the comparisons to nazis and accusations of mental illness, I don't see them?

Elonka, I have looked at the history of both the article and talk pages, and I don't see how the history is any less clear than a list someone created - even you admit that the list was made in a rush and wasn't necessarily accurate. When there is a page history, I don't know how there couldn't be transparency - unlike statements made by users and admins, history can't lie. And "everyone knows where they stand"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? If anyone wants to know where I stand, it's perfectly transparent from my list of contributions. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazis on the talk page of the list article, accusations of mental illness at ani, and multiple chillings here and ani.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Difs please? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Elonka seems to have taken on the roles akin to those of a Volksgericht ...storming in with jackboots clicking" [18]

"Might she possibly be ill at present? That is the only explanation I can find for her actions, which seem to be uncalled for and highly irrational" [19]

Then go to ANI and do a search for "chilling" and add those two to the one here.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok, I see a Godwin's, but the other two are expressions of concern. Hardly hysteria. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I see hysteria plain and simple, so we'll have to agree to differ. And, btw, there were another four, not two. One accusation of mental illness and three "chillings". Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing said three times is not three things. Chilling effect is the same concern stated three times. I'd say that gives it added weight, and Elonka should consider whether her actions are indeed having a chilling effect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has willfully misrepresented my editing patterns. I assume there'll now be some consequences for her. Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, as Elonka herself has already pointed out, User:Landed little marsdon is a recently arrived SPA. He has reproduced a diff that was refactored a few minutes after it was added. What exactly was the point of that? Mathsci (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I said that the extraordinary scenes we are witnessing, e.g., comparisons to nazis, accusations of mental illness, and claims ofterror at the mere sight of THE LIST, are a touch hysterical. Diffs were requested and so I provided them. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the diffs cited were immediately refactored and it is only this user that has suggested mental illness, the user of the account does not appear to be contributing in a constructive way. (His contributions remind me a little of the community banned sockpuppeteer User:Jagz, but I'm not an expert on these matters.) Why does he not try to add some extensive content to a main space article to see how this marvelous encyclopedia functions? Since User:Landed little marsdon does not seem to have extensive experience at main space edits, I will explain by way of example how this is done. Last week I looked at Hethumids because over the past few weeks I have been editing articles on the Crusader period with Elonka (she has mostly been copy-editing). I found that the french wikipedia version of the article had a nice family tree, but that it was unsourced. I found a reliable secondary source (the foundation for medieval genealogy) and produced an anglo-norman version of the family tree, found wikilinks to articles (this means that if you click on a link in any article it will bring up the linked article) and clarified possible errors. Elonka helped me and we sorted out the confusion over two occurrences of Stephany of Barbaron. That is how collegial editing is done. I have also edited some mathematics articles: now that the lede has been improved, the main part of the article on the Selberg trace formula will be completely rewritten. This topic is part of the Cambridge graduate course I'm teaching at the moment. I am in fact not well at the moment, because of the bad weather here in Britain and almost lost me voice before yesterday's lecture. Any further concerns that User:Landed little marsdon has about editing, sourcing, writing on science and history or personal health issues can be continued on my talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Marsdon, had I thought anyone might have understood the Russian of the Soviet equivalent I'd have used that. BTW, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, hence there are reasons for raising certain comparisons. Wouyld a ref to Torquemada have been better? Nicolae Ceauşescu and his secret courts? Ditto for a long list of similar processes going back millennia. Some are, however, rather obscure. Nite that I've mentioned Guantanamo lately to refer to similar proceedings •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jim, enough. Way too much of your time over the last few days has been on wiki-dramas. It's time to get back to the articles, so please move along. --Elonka 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Golden Poop (Asahi Beer Hall)

Elonka- Kin no unchi (金のうんち) translates into golden poop. This is a fact and there is no way to prove it besides being able to speak Japanese. Put the first character, kin, or the last 3 hiragana, unchi, into a dictionary if you need further evidence. The 'no' character, the first hiragana and second overall letter, is a posessive.

However, whether or not the building is actually called Kin no Unchi is something I cannot verify. That was there before I put the translation in. If vandalism has occured, it was done so under the guise of a Japanese translation and the vandal assumed no editor would read it. If there is any factual dispute, it should be over whether or not that is an actual colloquialism, not over if the translation is or is not golden poop. That said, I have seen the building personally and I can verify it does indeed look like a golden piece of poop, unfortunately enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.228.21.40 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 20 January 2009

Golden poops are very popular in japan - for keychains and jewelry, dunno about beerhalls. Also plushy poops as toys for children. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done some research, and it looks like it is The Golden Poop, but its O Gon No Unko not Kin No Unchi according to the two sources I located. I didn't bother to check the thousand or so blog entries. I've left a note at Talk:Asahi Breweries and leave it to the editors of that page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blanked section

So I came to see if you'd answered me and if you still wanted difs or if you wanted my reply to your question without, and it appears you've decided not to pursue that subject after all, is that correct? I can ditch the history digging I'm doing? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Check your email. --Elonka 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, so I checked my mail, and you told me to send anything I had to say there not here. I asked (several times) why? and all I've gotten in return is a slew of insults. Elonka, we should keep our discussion here. Do you want me to post my response to your question with, or without, difs? I can post without now, and if there is anything you dispute I can find the individual difs for you. Or, you can ask for the whole to be posted with difs, and I'll do that. Enough with the sneaky emails off-wiki where no eyes can see. Answer here, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• On User:Landed little marsdon's talk page, you suggested that this user might be the sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user. Have you checked this? What he has been writing on your talk page contradicts my edit history and would probably qualify as WP:BAITing. He does appear to be an SPA and probably, given his surprising knowledge of past events on wikipedia, is not a newly arrived editor.

• I have no strong feelings about List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Apart from possibly adding Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory back to the list, I don't really have any views about the article or its title. These things seem to be a necessary evil on wikipedia. Often individual editors will add their own fringe science work or that of their associates to wikipedia. Smarandache function was such an article: it required a lot of clean-up and might not survive a future nomination for deletion. It is mostly about peripheral and unoriginal mathematics, rescued only by the work of R.G.E.Pinch, the number theorist and cryptographer, on pseudo-Smarandache functions.

• On a different note, in the workshop page (or its talk page) of the PHG ArbCom case it was already pointed out that Angus had approved the current version of Siege of Bangkok, having requested that the citations be properly referenced to the sources. I don't think that is uncommon for history articles on that period. (The article on Adrienne de La Fayette from a century later makes extensive use of her letters.) Like you, I am actually still a bit uneasy about the detailed sequence of events, pieced together from primary sources. Mathsci (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I contacted the Checkusers, but they said the information was inconclusive (my word, not theirs). So we are giving LLM the benefit of the doubt, and in the meantime he is being strongly encouraged to find a balance in editing, at least 50-50 between edits to the pseudosciences page and other additions to the encyclopedia. As for Bangkok, I was unaware that Angus had approved that version. You are still welcome, however, to post concerns at the article talkpage if you think it needs better sourcing. It's a valid concern. --Elonka 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up ont LLM. Angus wrote an explicit response to my evidence on Siege of Bangkok in his own evidence for the ArbCom case. We should probably accept what Angus has said there. Mathsci (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wilson the Volleyball

Found your sources for the creation of the character... A very astute question, indeed. First paragraph on page 3: [20] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice find! Definitely something that should be added to the article. We can also add a "Creator" field to the infobox now.  :) --Elonka 05:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

No edit war it was misunderstanding between me and the other user, its all worked out. BlueRed 05:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :) --Elonka 05:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Notification

See this request for clarification. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG evidence review

Several arbitrators wanted an independent review, and so I've pulled some of the disputed sources here. I think that the final remedies will approximate what has been posted on the workshop page, except that Hellenistic India may be added to the restriction. Feedback is appreciated. Cool Hand Luke 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look, once I'm done with my statement on the Pseudoscience case.  :) --Elonka 05:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Jagz

Hi Elonka, thanks for the support about the Request for checkuser. I couldn't add this request to the list, and then realised that Requests for checkuser have been replaced with Sockpuppet investigations. So I moved the request to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagz. As you can see the checkuser confirmed that User:Wet dog fur is Jagz. I'll give Jagz this, he's very persistent!!! Anyhow, thanks for the support. Alun (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Jeff Halevy

Jeff Halevy is being repeatedly vandalized by user Veloscity and IP address 72.43.101.29 (the IP has been traced to John Sitaras, one of the partners in Sitaras Fitness). I have given warnings and see others have fixed the vandalized deletions -- which are well sourced (USA Today and Men's Vogue). Please help protect this page. Thanks! Chad hermanson (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists

Might want your attention...I find User:AzureFury pretty intractable, but perhaps he's right and I'm missing it completely. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The material trivially satisfies wiki policy. The only argument against it now is a vote. Wikipedia is not a vote. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal deletions

Hi Elonka, as a general reminder, please remember to check for subpages when you delete a portal. Your deletion of Portal:Internal Look 2009 left three subpages. (I have deleted them now.) Thanks. --B (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

list of pseudosciences

Since you're clearly acting in an official capacity. Acceptable? [21] Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate an answer. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Without going into detail on who said what to whom, I will agree that the level of discourse on the talkpage was deteriorating. --Elonka 03:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a straightforward question to an administrator so that I can get some idea of the bounds of what is acceptable conduct. I would appreciate a straight answer.Landed little marsdon (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll try. Though be aware that you could ask that question of ten different administrators, and get ten different answers. Some would sanction, some wouldn't. Speaking for myself, I've seen uncivil comments from multiple editors on that talkpage. However, in order to take action for incivility, there are some weighting factors:

• Is the person who is being uncivil, also providing useful commentary somewhere in among the incivility?
• Is the incivility coming from an established editor who might just be having a bad day, or from someone who's been making incivility a way of life?
• Is the incivility coming from an editor who has a history of solid article-writing or other positive article contributions behind them, or are they a "conflict-junkie" that just jumps from talkpage to talkpage, sniping as they go?
• How bad was the incivility?
• Was the incivility targeted at a specific editor, or was it just general ranting?
• Was it the kind of incivility that might, with a stretch of the imagination, be regarded as an attempt at humor?
• Which administrator is making the judgment on the incivility? Is the administrator paying close attention to the article? Topic area? Or are they just on routine vandal patrol? (If the latter, the incivility is probably going to have to be really bad for them to take action)
• What's the political climate around the article? If an admin takes action on the incivility, will it be doing anything to improve the environment at the talkpage?
• Did the incivility come out of the blue, or was the uncivil editor being baited? Or, on the flip side, does it appear that the uncivil editor might be trying to bait someone else?
• Was the uncivil editor previously warned?
• (etc.) The ultimate measuring stick of course is, "What is best for the article, and best for Wikipedia?"

What you said at the talkpage, and what a couple other editors there were saying, were all running afoul of some of the above criteria. In your own case, the strikes you already had against you were that you have several flags of "possible sockpuppet", you've been a single-purpose account despite strong cautions about this, you're engaging in discussions at a powderkeg article, and you accused someone of a "libelous" statement. Those all combined to result in a request to stay off the page for awhile. As for the diff you provided, it's borderline, but not enough to get a warning from me at this time. If that editor (or other editors) continue with those kinds of comments, I probably will warn, or more.

My advice to you, is the same thing that I've been saying for awhile now: Work on other articles. Get some perspective, show that you're not just here as a single-purpose account. You've made some good comments on the talkpage, and I'm confident that you can return in the future. I think you've got a lot to offer, but I'd like to see you offer it on multiple articles, not just that one.

Okay, long answer, but I was trying to be thorough. Does it help? If not, keep asking, and I'll keep trying to explain the wiki-subtleties. --Elonka 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want it to be clear that you have been made aware of the BLP violation and that your official response was to leave the libel in place and to effectively prevent me from removing it. I also want to be clear that you have tacitly endorsed the use of racial slurs by your refusal to do anything about them. I am British and I take great offense at having my nation ridiculed in the manner you seen to find so amusing. Landed little marsdon (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What BLP violation? And that the inhabitants of the British isles formerly dyed themselves with woad is well documented history, hardly a racial slur. The intent seems to have been to say, "just because other things happened in the past, that's not relevant now" using an illustration from British history. We could say "Yes, and Incans once sacrificed to the sun god" and it wouldn't be a slur to any modern persons. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. With a little Pythonesque humour tossed in. Bottom line is that just because a practice has existed for centuries or millennia doesn't mean it's "right". How many kids won't step on a crack for fear of breaking their mother's back? How man folks are upset by a black cat crossing their path? How many folks think eating carrots will improve their vision? (interesting back story to that one by the way). Given that I have a number of good friends who are British, and given that I have no prejudice toward any people based on any criteria, it certainly wasn't libel. Sheesh. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am British and I find the lack of a sense of proportion and humour offensive. Sheesh. Separately, Elonka I'd like to thank you for showing "a more even hand" recently, but I still think there are problems. Verbal chat 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: there is nothing wrong with Jim's comment, especially for a native English speaker. There is little wrong with SAs response, indeed considering the baiting going on it is very civil (for SA, amazingly so). Verbal chat 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The accusation of racism is not mainly about the paint, it is about the rejection of a high quality source (the BMA) based solely on it being British, and that rejection being explained in terms of the obvious backwardness of the British - a point driven home by reference to practices from several thousand years ago. That this argument is taken seriously by many on the talk page can be seen from the fact that nobody else has felt the need to deal with the BMA source. It is therefore the acceptance of this racist garbage as some sort of valid point that is offensive in the extreme. Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Racism? Racism??? No, I think not. It's more to the point of the BMA supporting homeopathy, a "discipline" that is clearly pseudoscientific. At no point did I say that the English were in any way backward -- they just have a different set of criiteria for adjudging things to be "acceptable". To say thit it's racist is to do no more than try to stoke a fire that does not exist. In fact, I've already pointed out that by my own study, only 8.25% of Americans know how many times the earth goes round the sun -- does that make that comment about mt conationals "racist"? Please. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)>

Your comment about the British is racist, while your further remarks about Americans and about "the masses" are elitist. And just because you can point to these other offensive remarks based on further crude stereotypes of various national and socio-economic groups,does not make any of it more acceptable, nor does it do anything to lessen the original charge. Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

marsdon, while complaining about others incivility, you've managed to label them racists and now elitist - you're getting to the point where I'd consider continuing along these lines to be a personal attack. You were concerned, you had it reviewed and as of yet, no one agrees with your novel interpretation of the remark - time to drop it. Shell ^babelfish 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If I were to say that Africans use to climb trees and some of them were cannibals in the same context Elonka used to say that Britons painted themselves in woad and ran round trees, would it be considered racist? I don't believe Elonka intended any racism but, at times it is better to choose our words more carefully. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What ever. You just like stirring up the dramaz. Or, worse, creating it. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

At least marsdon chooses the formally more correct formulations of his criticism by saying that remarks are racist or elitist, as opposed to characterising editors, e.g. as drama seeking. That's one thing we can all do towards keeping the drama levels down. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LLM, looking into ScienceApologist's comment, I agree that there was a (minor) BLP violation there.[22] I have left a note on ScienceApologist's talkpage and asked him to refactor.[23] --Elonka 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)