User talk:Elonka/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Stalking

(moved by User:Ned Scott from User talk:Centauri [1] [2])

(translation): Ned Scott (talk · contribs) and Wknight94 (talk · contribs) (an administrator, no less) have been stalking me today. They've been showing up at my bio [3][4], my mom's bio [5], pages about my company's products [6][7], articles related to a podcast that I appeared on[8], an AfD that I started [9], a stub that I created several months ago [10], the IGDA article [11], and now here (at User_talk:Centauri) too. None of the individual edits was particularly out of line, but as a pattern, they're pretty creepy, and this edit in particular was pretty ballsy: [12]. My guess is that they're following me around because they're upset that I've pointed out their disruptive behavior at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television). But guys, seriously, Wikipedia is a big place, go play somewhere else, eh? --Elonka 03:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalking and looking at your past edits are two different things, as noted by Wikipedia:Wikistalking#Wikistalking: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor."

I was curious about you as an editor and as an individual, and looked at both your edit history as well as your web site. In the process of looking things up my habits as a Wikipedia editor stirred up, unrelated to our dispute. I was not doing any of this to annoy you, harass you, or cause distress. If anything I thought it would better help me understand you as an editor and would likely result in seeing you in a more positive light. There is nothing disruptive about this, and it's perfectly fine. Wikipedians (and most people on the internet) have a tendency to follow links and see where they will take them.

I'm sorry, but it's a little absurd to think that people won't follow links in articles or your web site. You are the one who's chosen to identify with your real name and confirm your identity. On your website, don't you want people to look at links and see stuff you've done? Is it really that strange to you?

Considering these were all valid and rational edits, I don't see what there is to be upset about. I don't see anything mean-spirited or anything intended as harassment.

I'm also a bit bothered that you keep taking this outside of the dispute. I am human, so I will honestly say I am frustrated with you, but I do try my best to separate issues. I don't see why this dispute has to define all of our interactions on Wikipedia. There are a lot of users who I respect and collaborate with who I have had heated debates with in the past. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, your story changes so often, I find it hard to believe anything you say anymore. A couple days ago when I pointed out you were using profanity in edit summaries, you accused me of wikistalking and harassment.[13]. At Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), yesterday you accused me of personal attacks, while at the same time accusing me of being "immature, rude, and disrespectful."[14] Today you're obviously spending time at pages that are related to me, but I don't buy the "just curious" story, considering that all your edits were negative and sniping types of edits, including flat out deleting one by redirecting it without any discussion or attempt at an AfD process [15]. Then you try to defend your actions with a sweetness and light message about just being interested. Please also notice that there's a long list of editors posting to your talk page, pointing out that you have a civility problem. Perhaps you should think about taking a break from Wikipedia for awhile? Or, if you want me to believe the "curiosity" angle, how about making some positive edits to those articles you're so interested in? I'd be happy to give you references for anything you're curious about, and then you could add and fix things to your satisfaction, and we could work together constructively on something. --Elonka 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The verify tags, etc. were determined by me in about 20 minutes of reading pages which were no more than 2 links from your user page - so you needn't bother with the drama of stalking allegations, etc. Please read WP:STALK and WP:DISRUPT before using such language. In particular from WP:STALK:

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.

I'm curious how you view my activity any different than your admission to reading through my RFA for no discernible reason. Furthermore, it's interesting to read this edit where you mention secondary sources only to find so many articles related to you which similarly lack secondary sources. BTW, if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline were viewed as a precedent, some of these unverified or loosely verified articles might be worthy of WP:AFD - but I'll leave that up to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What.. story? I'm sorry, but I don't see where I've changed my mind on anything or changed any story, so I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. I made two edits to articles that are somewhat related to you, and then found myself having to defend two non-controversial minor edits.

One of those edits was a revert to an edit made by Jimbo Wales [16] [17] because the text violated a policy. How on Earth can you get made at me for that? Seriously?

The second edit I don't see as negative at all. Digital DawgPound looked like this, it's about a group that maintains Binary Revolution Radio. I redirected Digital DawgPound to Binary Revolution Radio. The article had no content except for a member list, which didn't seem important. The article had not grown in about a year's time, and the list seemed like trivial information. It's likely a valid search term so an AfD would have been inappropriate. The talk page had one edit, by you, back in June, and didn't seem to be active at all. This seemed like a minor, non-controversial redirect, that in the end will improve the over-all coverage of this group and website by centralizing their information on one article. Not only that, but this group is loosely related to you, and it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for me to use that article to somehow attack or harass you.

That is not harassment, that is not stalking. However, you digging through my edit history in order to write me a direct message like the one you did, that is trolling behavior. There is a big difference there. I didn't write you a message or direct anything towards you. You were not a factor, at all, in those edits. You might have been a factor in me finding those articles, but that's about it.

Do I sound nicer in my messages? Seems an odd thing to get mad at me about. I am going out of my way with my words right now, because you'll yell at me if I say anything slightly or anywhere near what might be considered uncivil. Maybe I was watching my wording too much and came off a bit phony. If so, I'm sorry, but you're over reacting here, and I'm really getting tired of defending myself from absurd accusations. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility question

Dear Elonka, I always respected you for your fine-tuned sense of detecting incivility. May I ask you for an opinion on the matters raised at User_talk:Piotrus#Under-the-carpet_maneuvers? Was I offended, or am I overreacting?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have replied to you in private email. --Elonka 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. FYI, your name has been mentioned at User talk:JzG#Trolling? Please explain ANI deletion. You may want to reply there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, as a courtesy note, I wanted to let you know that your name has come up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, in case you would like to participate in the discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This message is what the RFC is about. Piotrus, please look at your contributions and estimate how much of them are "requests for input", "Ghirlandajo said... so I search for your opinion", "I know that you have had conflicts with Ghirla, so please comments on his latest outburst...", "thanks for reporting on Ghirla's actions", etc, etc. I don't how others feel in such situations, but I regards such actions as objectionable and incivil. Can you name a single instance when I acted this way? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry P.P., but Ghirla caught you red-handed here. Fortunately for you, Elonka is too intelligent to fall for this low based flattery, and too well-bred to chide you for this rather cheap attempt to garner support from her against your RfC. What you fail to understand, is all of this is a much less personal attack than you think. It boils down to are you, in the capacity of an administrator, able to function above the fray, in a much less biased manner than you have chosen to demonstrate in the past? If you want to play to the mob, you might consider resigning your administratorship. Then you'd be part of the mob. Is this the better choice, maybe? I really doubt you would survive a vote to be reinstated, if you resigned. Sorry, Elonka for using your talk space as a referee, but these boys could both break it up a little, and both quit hitting below the belt. This was more of a no man's land than the RfC page. Dr. Dan 03:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: NPA claim against Josiah Rowe

Elonka, If I may delurk and jump in for a moment in Josiah's defense. I've been on the sidelines with the current and rather overly-contentious debate going on at Naming conventions (television). That Josiah has been as even-keeled and balanced in his responses there is a testament to his fair-mindedness and fortitude. While his reply to Matthew may seem to tiptoe into the zone of incivility, it was far from a personal attack, but an expression of disbelief. Matthew is an enthusiastic editor, but at times casually discourteous -- his flippant remark to Wknight of "what case?" was one such time (and itself might be interpreted as an uncivil comment). I sometimes wonder, however, if you read the actual policy you cite, or derive your own interpretation. WP:NPA states,

...it is equally important not to interpret impersonal comments as personal attacks. Examples of comments that are not personal attacks include:

• Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.

The essay page you point Josiah to, WP:TEA, states that it is intended to "declare publicly what you appreciate about other members of the community or their contributions"; specifically, "Saying nice things about other contributors, especially those with whom you are currently having problems." I don't see anything that you've written in appreciation of Josiah there. Directing him to "review policies, take a step back, take a deep breath, and perhaps have a cup of tea", after rapping him on the knuckles for a supposed personal attacks is, IMHO, a decidedly condescending and non-positive suggestion.

It seems to me that you have on various occasions claimed personal attacks and incivility in dealing with others on Wikipedia when none exists; such "fingerpointing" itself tends to raise the level of frustrations and stress. It may be an oversensitivity of refined sensibilities on your part. Perhaps, you might consider that some of the issues being raised on the WP pages/sections you frequent may actually be derived from the way you respond and interact with others who might disagree with you. Sometimes it's better to leave a matter alone-- even when you think you're in the right-- then to continue to nitpick to demonstrate your right-ness.

I note that you hope eventually to be a WP administrator. Chiding current admins in good standing about what you see as their failings is likely not the path to seeing your goals accomplished. Please take my comments as they were intended, in the spirit of helpfulness, as you are certainly an exceptionally knowledgeable and productive editor, who just sometimes seems to get caught up in Wikilawyering (a habit we all occasionally fall into).--Leflyman^Talk 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman, your words sound quite pleasant, but considering that you have been nominating my articles for deletion, and frequently engaging in uncivil commentary yourself, it's very difficult to take them to heart. Also, considering the quantity of profanity and name-calling that has been generated by others in the debate (including admins), it appears a bit one-sided that you'd take the time to try to "correct" my behavior (which has been unfailingly civil), and not say anything to anyone else. If you were distributing cautions more evenly (and not attacking my articles), it would be easier to take your words as being said in good faith. --Elonka 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Elonka, I think you've made my case for me. You seem to be unfailing in one thing: fingerpointing-- to a degree I've not seen from the "others in the debate." You've simply over-shot the mark this time in admonishing Josiah, one of the most patient and even-keeled editors I've had the pleasure to deal with in my years on Wikipedia. He's gained the respect of numerous editors and admins for his balanced temperament during contentious debates. (He even handled a recent emailed threat against him with aplomb.) One can certainly learn from his example. Oh, and, "nominating my articles", "attacking my articles"? Perhaps you might consider a review of WP:OWN.--Leflyman^Talk 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Josiah has been just as civil as you have. He's shown an inhuman amount of patience in this debate which has earned him my respect and the benefit of the doubt. I, myself, have tried as much as possible to refrain from personal attacks, incivility, or name-calling. I have not participated in any kind of edit-warring and I try not to "pile it on" when others criticize your positions. So you'll understand that I take offense to your repeated vague accounts of personal attacks without naming who made them. It seems you're trying to paint anyone who disagrees with you with a broad brush to discredit us. –  Anþony  talk  04:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a second there. I will agree that both you and Josiah have been more patient and cool headed about this than I have, but .. what gives with that comment? Don't mistake me for Izzy Dot, and don't be pulled into Elonka's misrepresentation of other people's civility. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. It was inappropriate for me to drag your or anyone else's name into it. I mean only to say that none of us should be held responsible for actions of others. Elonka's trying to use a history of other people being incivil as a indictment against Josiah, which makes no sense. –  Anþony  talk  08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's ok, I see now what you meant to say, and I take no offense to it. -- Ned Scott 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have supplied diffs of attacks many times, but to repeat: "stalling"[18][19], "immature delay tactics"[20][21], "bad faith" [22], and the "whining"[23] of "sore losers"[24] "borderline trolling"[25] being generally "disruptive" [26][27]. Other editors' opinions referred to as "dumb ideas" [28] whose "messages are BS" [29]]. My reminders about civility on Ned's talkpage were deleted with uncivil edit summaries such as accusations of "trolling" [30][31]. Further, having my edits repeatedly deleted off the page is pretty damn uncivil[32][33]. Plus the steady stream of Harassment by Wknight94, who's been steadily nitpicking my edits and wiki-stalking [34], showing up at pages all over my watchlist, throwing warnings at my page if I so much as breathe wrong, and now starting a new campaign against several bios in my family tree. Plus of course there are the attacks at the Village pump, like saying that one of my posts was "distorting reality to gain sympathy" [35], or at the talk page of WP:POLL, where personally-directed comments include, "screaming for a new poll" [36], and "intellectually dishonest" [37]. None of which I have responded to in kind, and yet certain editors are continuing to jump up and down and complain that I'm the bad guy. Personally, I think I've been showing the patience of a saint. How do you think you would behave, if you were treated to such a steady barrage? Me, I'm handling it by distributing civility and NPA warnings on the spot. Don't want the warnings? Don't be uncivil or issue personal attacks, it's really simple. --Elonka 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that not one of those diffs is an edit of mine. It is true that the comment to Matthew which provoked your comment reflected a certain frustration, but it was also exactly what it claimed to be: honest bafflement. As for my own conduct, I thank the editors who have spoken in my defence — they have presented my case much more eloquently and dispassionately than I could have. It is greatly appreciated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your one diff of mine asserts my opinion that it is intellectually dishonest to create support for a position where none previously existed. That is to say, had you gotten your language inserted into WP:POLL, it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that WP:POLL supported you, because it's really just you supporting yourself. I stand by that statement, I maintain it is not a personal attack, and I ask you not to repeat the claim again. Please review WP:NPA, which says explicitly that statements about the actions of a user, rather than the user him/her/itself, are inherently not personal attacks. Most of the diffs you cite suffer from a similar problem.

You supply diffs as well wherein Ned and Wknight claim that you are being disruptive, presumably because you believe this constitutes a personal attack. I'd like to draw your attention to a recent claim you made against Ned, using very similar language to describe him as being disruptive.[38]

Once again, I do not deny that some people have resorted to inappropriate language and an incivil tone. However, I object strongly to the implication that anyone who disagrees with you is guilty by association. I remind you that none of your diffs are from Josiah. That other users have used inappropriate language is no reason to admonish Josiah, who has proven himself time and again as a responsible and respectable editor. –  Anþony  talk  05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How many times do you plan on making allegations of harassment without actually presenting the applicable parts of WP:HA that you feel I'm not complying with? Here, I'll give you an example:

User space harassment

Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

A user page is for the person to provide some general information about themself and a user talk page is to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

That is the part of the policy that I'll be posting at WP:ANI or worse if the unsupported claims persist - against me for harassment or against others for your other unsubstantiated claims (Josiah uncivil?! Really?!!). You say far too much and make far too many sweeping declarations and accusations without any evidence to back you up.

As far as your family bios, you've already been admonished at your own WP:RFA for writing bios on your own relatives and, worse, using your own original research for references. Jimbo took time out of his day to specifically state that your original research is not an appropriate reference. Danny (talk · contribs) has also brought up concerns over your conflict of interest. And yet, in over a month, nothing has been done to fix that - the references remain. I'm being overly generous in asking you to make the edits yourself to bring those in compliance with the policy WP:V. By rights, they could all be chopped down to stubs just the way Jimbo did. In fact, some would probably scold me for not doing it myself. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Elonka, they are trying to get you down.. just keep calm (like you always do) and they'll get bored. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, Elonka. Sorry you are having to deal with all this hatefulness and unreasonableness. I have been sick all weekend and am trying to catch up with the discussion. hang in there, just stay cool and don't let them get to you. Here is my moral support to you, I will comment where I can, but I only count maybe three or four total people who seem even slightly interested in being constructive, and I have little-to-no patience with the positional stance that many of the 'others' are taking (which seems to boil down to: "This is the way it is, I will hear no discussion and acknowledge no conflict" and "everything that everyone on the other side says is not valid in any way at all because I say so"). This is why it took so long for me to even start editing Lost pages - because of the editors who were so aggressive, harsh/rude, and authoritarian in their actions - it really turns people off and is unwelcoming. sorry, just venting. . . So (catching up), what is going on with the mediation attempt that Josiah had put forth? It looks like people are still adding/removing their names there, but then I heard talk of a new mediation attempt - do you know what is up? Riverbend 14:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Riverbend, I again invite you to take a look at the talk page archives at WP:TV-NC. The only reason people are "putting their foot down" now is because we did give the discussion a fair chance, and we did originally listen to all the concerns. It's just that the outcome wasn't what Elonka wanted, and now she's been repeating things for the last few weeks. No new arguments have been made since the start of the debate. -- Ned Scott 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your perspective, and have read the entirety of all archives on this discussion at least twice, most discussions more than ten times each. Please don't assume ignorance just because I have a different take on the matter than you. I do not believe that the harshness, rudeness, and aggression are warranted no matter how long a discussion goes on - I think that people should control their tempers better and treat each other with more respect. Regardless of whether anyone has violated any particular civility rule, the tone of this (entire extended) discussion has been awful in many parts. I also have observed that most people in this discussion are in a positional stance, and have been for a VERY long time - multiple people tried to move things in a constructive direction or develop workable solutions since I have been here (not that long), and they have been basically dismissed or ignored or overwhelmed by the rapid-fire positional, negative, and unconstructive comments. I consider this to be unreasonable. So, I am making these observations and giving moral support to Elonka (on her own talk page). I certainly invite you to my talk page if you want to talk to me about this further. Riverbend 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Moves

Hi, Elonka. I've been busy in real life for the last couple of days, and haven't fully caught up with recent developments. (I've seen that the mediation was rejected, and I've read WT:TV-NC and the AN/I threads, but I haven't looked into any of the other places this debate has spread into, like a metastasizing cancer.) I appreciate you reaching out to me, and I think that the sentiment of acting with integrity and mutual respect is a noble one. I'm don't think that I can support an absolute moratorium on page moves, since there really does seem to be a consensus in support of the guideline — the results of the already completed Lost RM would seem to support this. However, in the spirit of your request, I can support a recommendation that no more moves be performed outside of the WP:RM process.

The core of the TV-NC dispute, as I see it, is whether there is consensus in support of the guideline or not. If, as you and Matthew believe, there is not a consensus in support of WP:TV-NC, then any page moves should be examined on their own merits, in accordance with other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Although I disagree with it, I can understand your argument of why moving pages without a formal RM can be disruptive in the current environment. I don't see how filing move requests and asking the views of all interested editors, including those who maintain the articles, is disruptive. The RM process is deliberate, careful and open to all Wikipedians. I think that using RM for the remaining moves is appropriate and would show due respect to those who disagree with the current guideline. Does that make sense to you? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, thank you for your courteous response. It's my hope that if we can continue to treat each other with civility, we may be able to find a way out of this mess. :)

In terms of just defining what the different positions are, the way I see it, things break down more or less like this:

• There's an "NC Gang" of editors who are adamantly against any kind of compromise, against mediation, and against running a new poll. They refuse to negotiate in good faith, they escalate the matter with incivility and non-consensus moves, and in a few cases are making the dispute very very personal, by generating personal attacks and incivility, creating or supporting revenge AfD nominations, or stalking other users' contributions. This group seems to be comprised of:

Wknight94, Ned Scott, Ace Class Shadow, Yaksha, Milo H Minderbinder, Serge Issakov, Jay32183, BlueSquadronRaven

• The "WP:DAB" crowd. This group feels strongly that disambiguation guidelines should be followed. They're not (as) militant about it, but, through either unawareness of the unethical tactics by the above group, or quiet acceptance of it, they seem to be allied with the gang:

Anþony, Brian Olsen, you, Chuq, Radiant!, Nohat, Shannernanner, Wikipedical

• Then on the other side, we've got the "Let the WikiProjects decide" group:

Myself, MatthewFenton, Riverbend, Argash, EnsRedShirt, PeregrineFisher, Huntster, TobyRush, JeffStickney

• The "disagree with dab, but will go along with seeming consensus" group. These names particularly sadden me, because I saw them pop into the conversation, state their objections, and then they were rapidly overwhelmed by the "NC gang", who intimidated them right out of the conversation by making them feel that they were lone voices:

Tango, Cburnett

• The "we're disgusted with this conversation" group. They don't seem to have a clear stance on the disambiguation issue, but they've popped in to say that the situation is a mess, and they recommend a poll:

PKtm, Oggleboppiter, Englishrose

In short, when I look at the above groupings, what it tells me is that:

• about 16 editors feel strongly that WP:DAB should be strictly followed, with about half of that number feeling so strongly about it that they want to push through thousands of page moves to "enforce" it immediately.

• About 8 editors strongly desire some degree of WikiProject autonomy

• Another 8 or so editors fall into varying camps of either disagreeing with DAB but not caring about it that much, or wanting everyone to try and find a different way of dealing with the situation.

A few other editors, such as at the Village Pump, have agreed with WikiProject autonomy, but are too daunted by the NC-TV chaos to want to wade in and specifically participate in the debate.

I may have missed a few names here, but I think the general breakdown is more or less accurate. And no, I'm not providing this list so that we can whip out our calculators and try to determine supermajority percentage -- I'm providing it to indicate that this is not just a "me and Matthew" thing. We may be two of the more vocal people in this discussion, but we're not alone.

What I would like to see at this point is:

• A moratorium on moves (would a 30-day ceasefire be too much to ask?), to reduce the sense of urgency that's just escalating tension. There seems to be a sense from the NC Gang that if they can just get the moves pushed through, that the problem will go away, but that's not the case. The more moves that are forced through, the more complaints that are going to be generated, and the more that this situation is going to escalate.

• Trying again at Mediation, perhaps through MedCab

• Running a survey. I think we're really really close to agreed-upon wording, and I really strongly think that a poll would help clarify the issue. Honestly, when I'm talking to other people about this, the most common response I get is, "Too complex, I don't know where to post."

I've been talking backchannel to some ArbCom reps, and they're telling me that the reason we're not getting any response at ANI, is because the issue is so complex. They're neither encouraging nor discouraging me from filing the ArbCom case, but the word "complex" keeps coming up, over and over. So if nothing else, I think the best way that we could proceed at this point, is to talk about how to simplify this matter. It is my opinion that further moves are complicating things (and escalating tension by increasing the sense of urgency). Please, can we take a step back, stop making rapid changes, and talk about this? --Elonka 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we've been talking about this for over a month, and neither side is making much headway vis-a-vis convincing the other. I know that you feel things are being rushed, but other participants feel like there's been more than adequate time for discussion and debate, and would almost certainly regard a moratorium as "delay tactics".

Similarly, since we weren't able even to keep from edit warring on the RfM page in the formal mediation, I don't know that informal mediation (without the agreement of key parties) would be at all useful.

I should note here, Elonka, that your list of participants appears somewhat distorted: on "your" side, you include editors like EnsRedShirt and PeregrineFisher who have made their opinions known but have not participated actively in the discussion, but on the "DAB" side you exclude editors like Khaosworks, Fru1tbat, ThuranX, Izhmal, Percy Snoodle, Ac1983fan, AnemoneProjectors and many, many others who have been equally clear and have participated roughly as much as EnsRedShirt. I also question whether the "disagree with dab, but will go along with consensus" group has dropped out of the conversation because they were intimidated, or because they just didn't care that much about it. Unless you ask them, we can't know, and it's not really appropriate to characterize them either way.

As for running another poll, in the past I've been willing to support that in the interest of ending this poisonous debate. However, several editors have objected vigorously to the notion of another poll, and given that these objections are part of the environment, I don't think another poll would be regarded as legitimate.

But I wonder, if we've got RM surveys going on at the same time, couldn't they be regarded as proxies for the TV-NC debate? Unless there are specific arguments which would apply to a particular television series and not to others, the arguments are going to be the same each time. Radiant! pointed out on many occasions that Wikipedia guidelines are not generally decided by polling, but by conversation and practice. A series of requested move polls could show exactly that: what is the general opinion on this subject, and what is the general Wikipedia practice. Perhaps we could agree that the outcome of a series of RM polls — including an RM on the Buffy and Star Trek examples, which are bound to gain more involvement than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episodes — could be treated as a measure of the Wikipedia-wide opinion on the issue? That way, we could avoid another poll but also allow room for everyone to air their views. If you agree, I'll ask Yaksha not to make any more moves outside of RM, and we can work together to proceed in an orderly fashion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Preparatory School

Hi! I saw this one on your "to do" list, my late Wife's sister is an alumnus, so I thought I would give you a stub upon which to build! :) Chris 07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of a user page

Elonka, I don't want to be involved in that case, but I believe it would be worthwhile for the arbitrators to examine the merits of the out-of-process deletion, since my remark on Yaksha's user-page was just a good-natured advice. Of course, I did not expect to face such rudeness and hostility. If you add this episode to evidence, please let me know. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

XMAS gift

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Salad'o'meter™
	put barnstars here (no thumb or direction)
	n00b	involved	been around	veteran	seen it all	older than the Cabal itself

Request

Dear Elonka,

I noticed that you have a lot of experience with getting articles to FA status. I have been working on the Ohio Wesleyan University page article and am trying to get it to FA status. I was wondering if you could provide some advice on how the article can be improved? Also, any contributions to it will be even more appreciated! Thank you so much for your time! I greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 01:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pedia-I (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Wiki-break

FYI, my wiki-time will be curtailed over the next week or so, as I head cross-country to spend time with family for the Christmas holidays. I'll be passing through Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. If any of my wiki-friends are along that route, please let me know and maybe we can get together for a glass of eggnog and some wiki-stories!

Happy Holidays, Elonka 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Our decision in the arbitration case is that there was a consensus which you did not acknowledge. I don't think adding additional evidence would change that. Fred Bauder 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I had a question about the current Naming Conventions case. I was in the process of supplying evidence a couple weeks ago, when my wiki-time was interrupted by the holidays (and the fact that I got stuck in the New Mexico snowstorm for a few days). Upon my return to Wikipedia, I see that the voting phase on the case has already started, before I was able to finish supplying evidence, and before some of the other involved editors had returned from their own holiday break.  :/ May I continue with supplying the rest of my evidence? Or would it be too late at this point? I'd posted alerts about my upcoming absence and return on the ArbCom talk pages, such as at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Christmas and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#Additional evidence, but I'm not sure if anyone saw them. Thanks for your time, Elonka 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You can, I am willing to have a look at any extra material you provide. The case may linger for a few more days yet. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

Hi Elonka,

Welcome back from your break--we've missed you!

Are you doing anything on the Vanishing Point puzzle? (See, if you win, you could add to your list of places!)

See you on the other group.

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad to be back, as it was definitely an eventful holiday season for me! Check my blog if you'd like more details. --Elonka 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Financials

Thanks. I hate Spam even when sandwithced in an article. Pleclech 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible wiki-break

According to the weather report, St. Louis is targeted for one of the biggest icestorms in its history this weekend [39]. Power outages are likely. So, I will be either stuck at home and on Wikipedia all weekend, or I will be stuck at home and huddled under blankets during a power blackout. FYI... --Elonka 22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Groupies

Ah! Everytime I read your userpage, it looks like you're caught up in even more drama. :( Btw, speaking of stalking: You're stalking me! Haha, not really. But I've noticed you do spend a fair amount of time reading "hacking-related" wikipages. :) Power to the hacker groupies!

--Othtim 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount

Hello Elonka,
please send your real-name, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.

P.S: Now we have en-data :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaB. (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Storm update

Things in my neck of the woods (St. Charles, Missouri) are pretty bad because of the ongoing ice storms. Details are available in my blog. Bottom line: I'm safe, but power and internet access are extremely sporadic, and likely to remain so for several days. My apologies to anyone who's waiting for info from me.  :/ I'll be back as soon as I can. --Elonka 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

'Bot 'uncat-tagging

It took about 2.5 hours last time, which sounds about right, given 6 edits/minute. It'll be slightly faster the more it skips. And yes, it's working forwards (from a text file, c'n'p'd and massaged from the special page), so if you want to edit at the same time and avoid hitting the bot's "leavings", probably makes sense to work from the end. Alai 08:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

cong districts

thanks. My removal was a mistake. I don't know for sure where these should go. Perhaps Politics of Michigan instead of Government of Michigan since the cong districts are not involved in the actual governing of the state of Michigan. Hmains 02:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions

The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.

• It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

• Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.

• Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

• Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 04:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV casual feedback

Hi Elonka, I don't want to make a formal request yet but was wondering if you could review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Millan

It seems that for some time those first working on the article are no longer involved and IP addresses pop in and make changes. There is no active discussion.

I have edited considerably trying to create a NPOV. A lot still has to be done, as well as general tidy up.

Thanks Tintina 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pointless request for References

Why is there a request for references on the 2006 Norwegian Football Cup Final page?

Please could you reply to my user discussion page, Cheers!!

Dreamweaverjack 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WUSTL Project

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to WUSTL articles or that you are in some way connected to Washington University in St. Louis. I thought you might want to become a member of Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject . We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve articles in the WUSTL series. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

--Lmbstl 12:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability

You recently edited an article for Dekker Dreyer... the article is up for deletion based on notability, and I would like to ask you to chime in on the discussion of that deletion. Wikimegamaster 22:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)