User talk:Elonka

Dispute resolution

It's been now a week, and you have refused to answer my questions regarding your rationale on your decision to ban me. I think it's time to take this to some dispute resolution that involves others, as I'm not going to wait further or try harder to coax responses out of you. What do you suggest as the next best step?

Further, because of this ongoing dispute resoltion, I refuse to accept the terms of your lifting your ban on me. I don't believe your ban was proper, so you placing terms on lifting it is not proper either. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't placed "terms" on your ban, I just gave advice on how to avoid future bans. If you are banned again and you wish to appeal, you could take things to WP:ANI or WP:AE, depending on which case that you are banned under. But as long as you follow basic rules, such as to stay civil, to assume good faith, and to comment on content rather than contributors, no future ban should be necessary. --Elonka 17:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I don't believe your ban was proper. You've refused to explain your rationale for it. I'm asking to find a way to work this out. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I am a patient woman, but you are exhausting my patience. Even the most casual glance over the discussions in the above threads, will show that I have made many efforts to explain my rationale to you, so it is disruptive for you to keep repeating that I "haven't answered your questions" or that I have "refused to explain". To repeat again though: You were uncivil. You were asked to stop, you didn't stop, and you were then banned from the topic area for one week. If you continue re-asking the same questions on my talkpage, I may regard that as disruptive, and that may result in further bans, and/or a block. So it is my strong recommendation, now that your ban has expired, that you simply resume editing. You are not under any special restrictions at this point: You can edit where you want, you can participate on any talkpages that you want. Simply abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and there probably won't be any further problems. --Elonka 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said, I think we need a third party to help here. Sorry that you find this so frustrating. I'm finding it similarly frustrating. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you articulate what exactly it is that you'd like to change? --Elonka 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply, I want to change our behavior. I don't understand nor agree with your interpretations of policies and guidelines, and am unable to get you to clarify those interpretations. I had hoped to get you to clarify your viewpoints, but was unable to get you to do so. Now, I want to find a way to continue editing without being subject to interpretations that I don't agree with, don't understand, and am unable to get clarified. Realistically, I expect that we'll have to get a third party to clarify what the policies and guidelines actually say, and both of us will have to change our behaviors to be in line with them. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a personal dispute between the two of us. This is me, as an admin, offering course corrections when your behavior violated Wikipedia policies. As long as your behavior stays within policies in the future, there won't be any need for further communications. My recommendation is that you simply continue editing. Stay civil, assume good faith, keep comments focused on article content instead of contributors, and there's no problem. --Elonka 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is about your personal interpretations and extrapolations of policies and guidelines that I disagree with and refuse to be held to, especially when I cannot get them explained. Either we get someone to mediate, or I continue on, expecting you to excuse yourself from further involvement in my editing. That of course creates a problem for you, because any other editor should be able ask the same from you for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about mediation, it's about you abiding by policies, while you are communicating within the Wikipedia wiki. As long as you abide by policies such as "be civil" and "no personal attacks" (for details on the policies, click on those links), there's nothing to worry about. If you violate policies, you risk having certain restrictions placed on your account, from a ban on editing certain articles, to having your account access blocked. Any uninvolved administrator can take these actions. If you disagree with such a restriction, you can request a review of a block, by adding the {{unblock}} template to your user talkpage. If you disagree with a ban, you can appeal it by going first to the imposing administrator, and then to the appropriate administrator board. In the case of a ban that is imposed from an arbitration case, you could appeal it either at WP:ANI, or WP:AE. But again, as long as you stick to Wikipedia policies, none of this will be necessary. Keep your communications civil, be polite to other editors, and there is no need to worry. --Elonka 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, we're talking past each other. Let me put it another way: I don't think your interpretations of Wiki policies and guidelines are accurate. You don't appear to follow some of them yourself. My attempts to get you to clarify these interpretations have failed. I don't believe that I, nor anyone else for that matter, should be held to your interpretations when they do not appear to follow consensus, you are unable or unwilling to explain your interpretations, and you don't appear to follow some of them yourself.

I'm getting frustrated here. I'm sure this could all be worded better. I don't think we're making any progress though.

Please excuse yourself from any involvement in my editing, and we'll be fine. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is uninvited advice, so delete at will: I really think you two need a 3rd party mediator. Ronz, you are being aggressive in your questioning. Elonka, you are not answering the actual questions that he has been asking. Even if you don't think this is a dispute, which it probably isn't, it would still strike me as useful to get a third party involved who can help each of you "translate" into questions and answers that each other will understand. Regards to both of you, Antelan 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, I appreciate your comment, but things are not as they seem. Ronz is engaging in a standard intimidation tactic. It is commonplace that when certain editors are disruptive, and are then blocked or banned by an uninvolved administrator, that the editor then tries to intimidate the admin away from future actions, by charging bias, corruption, inappropriate application of rules, etc. etc. In Ronz's case, he is trying to state that this is a personal matter by repeating over and over that I need to stay away from him, or repeating over and over that I am not applying the rules properly, or repeating over and over that I am not answering his questions, even though I have answered them in great detail. But the fact is, that I am just an uninvolved administrator who is keeping an eye on pages where Ronz is participating. He says that I have not answered his questions, when in actuality a brief glance at conversations on both my talkpage and his, will show multiple communications. Note that you will probably have to look at the history on Ronz's talkpage, since he has a tendency to delete messages. Also, a third party administrator, Shell Kinney, has reviewed the communications and come to the same conclusion, that Ronz is just repeating the same question over and over.[1][2] The bottom line though, is that Ronz needs to abide by Wikipedia policies. If he does not, then I or any other uninvolved admin will take action to protect the project. See also WP:UNINVOLVED. That said, if you (Antelan) feel that you wish to try to communicate with Ronz, be my guest. --Elonka 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't mean to pick sides, but I stand by my original statement. He has been aggressive. You have answered questions, but often not the questions that he has asked you. This is why I'm proposing mediation. I know it's usually used for interpersonal disputes, but in this case I'm suggesting that it be used to get someone to translate between the two of you. I can give it a shot if you'd like, but I'd bet that experienced mediators would give you a better outcome. Antelan 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Which questions do you feel that I have not answered? --Elonka 17:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The questions that you have not answered are actually just the same question twice (oops!) so I'll just link to the most recent diff: [3]. The question was about how you felt about his intentions when he made a certain edit, and your reply was about how he felt when he made the edit. Obviously, I empathize with you, since his approach has been aggressive enough that if this question were posed to me, I wouldn't necessarily answer the precise question asked, either. That said, it seems that you feel as though you've explained yourself thoroughly enough, but he feels as though you haven't. Because I feel that both of you are, in good faith, misunderstanding each other, I suggested enlisting someone skilled in mediation. Antelan 18:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And my answer is the same, that I have no way of telling how Ronz "felt" at the moment that he made an edit. My responsibility is not to judge his off-wiki mental state, but to review on-wiki actions. Ronz was calling another editor a troll, on an article talkpage. How he felt while he was doing it, is irrelevant. He was being disruptive and making personal attacks, he was told to stop, he didn't, he was therefore banned from the topic area for a week. If he violates Wikipedia policies again, he's going to be told to stop, and/or banned or blocked, by any uninvolved administrator who observes the behavior. If Ronz wishes to avoid further problems, then he needs to be civil, he needs to avoid personal attacks (such as calling other editors trolls or vandals), and he needs to focus his article talkpage discussions on the article content, and not on opinions about the editors. Based on my recent review of his edits, he seems to be doing very well. He is engaging in constructive contributions, and he is treating other editors with respect. That's great stuff, and he should continue. I see no reason to mediate anything, because there's no action to be the result of mediation. He's not blocked or banned in any way, and is free to edit wherever he wants. --Elonka 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. I just thought I'd offer it as a suggestion. If the two of you have worked this out satisfactorily, then cheers to you both. Regards, Antelan 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka's actions. She has explicitly explained a number of times why she took the action she did. It's fast becoming a childish argument between Ronz and Elonka, with Ronz being the one at fault for aggressive actions and violating wikipedia policy. Ronz should just accept that what he did was wrong and move on, but I agree with Elonka that Ronz is attempting bullying tactics in order to escape the oversight by judicious administrators such as Elonka. Qq-sweeper (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What next?

Yes, I've been aggressive in my questions. I'm happy to refactor, rewrite, take a different approach, etc. I think I've been clear on this, and think a third party is needed to make any further headway. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and preparing a mediation case. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh

Hi Elonka. I'm here since you have warned Nick previously that civility is required in IP articles. I would like to report the following link where he has once again been incivil. The discussion has been heated, but telling me to "quit whining" when I'm making valid requests, suggesting that I will compromise and getting shat upon for my trouble is really beyond the pale. [4] Thank you for your consideration. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce

Hi Elonka,

I was wondering if you wouldn't be averse to having a look at RedSpruce's recent activity, particularly in regards to the Film noir article and talk page. I wasn't sure whom to ask, but you seem to already be familiar with some of his other recent activity. Any help or assistance in where to seek help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

His comments were way out of line, and he has been warned. If the behavior recurs, let me or some other uninvolved admin know. Also, a good tactic to use with these situations in the future, is that as soon as an attack occurs, to diff it to the user's talkpage, with a clear edit summary like "Civility" or "personal attacks". That way any admins who are watching that user's talkpage (but who may not be watching all articles where the user is participating) can be alerted that there is a problem. What you did here, leaving a note on my talkpage, is fine too. The only risk though, is that if I (or whichever other admin you contacted) isn't on Wikipedia, it could be a long wait. But usually multiple admins are watching various talkpages, so it could be a faster way to get a response on a specific user who has been blocked for disruption in the past. --Elonka 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will keep that in mind. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for my incivil behavior a few days ago. It was wrong of me. I hit my wikistress point--an explanation, not an excuse. I do still feel my refactor of his comments was correct though. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Elonka. I am glad you are keeping an eye on me :). Actually I don't know how to move it or I would. Re: the bot-thing. I see you have it on your page. I wouldn't mind that but can one choose an amount of time perhaps a bit more than 7 days of inactivity? Shouldn't one at least have a certain amount of activity before one archives? My talk page isn't all that busy. ;) But while I have your attention, I wanted to ask you about the possibility of moving the Zionism and Racism page for deletion. It was nominated once before --over a year ago --and the decision was "keep". It seems to me that there is nothing on that page that would not work by transferring it to other pages, such as a section on the Zionism page. And most of it is a rehash of Israel and the apartheid analogy (redirected from Israeli Apartheid) anyway. I started something on my computer as to the reasons I believe it should be deleted. Maybe I will try to put it on a subpage. Could I get your considered opinion and if you agree will you walk me through the process? Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would love it if you would move it for me and do the bot thing for maybe a month of inactivity instead, if it isn't too much trouble! Thank you. I put (what I consider my policy-related) reasons on the sandbox here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tundrabuggy/Sandbox , plus I have been doing quite a bit of complaining on the associated TALK page as well. I would appreciate your input. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I saw that you suggested to seicer that the protection he placed may have actually been correct. You're neglecting the fact that his edit, which was known to be disputed from a previous tittle-tattle and lengthy resulting discussion, caused the upset today in the first place. If seicer had had the sense to keep his hands off the POV tag, all would have been well until such a time that an appropriate addition to the article could have been made. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Anytime that there is a back and forth edit war, protection may be an option to restore stability to the article. However, if one of the editors involved in the war is an administrator, it is not appropriate for them to use their tools to "freeze" the article on their version. If some other uninvolved administrator may have come along at that point though, protection may have still been the proper option to stop the war. In any case, I strongly recommend civil talkpage discussion at this point, to try and find a compromise. --Elonka 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Dura, again

I wonder if you could have a word with ChrisO. Fresh off his article and talk page ban, he’s back with extremely uncivil, condescending remarks such as this. Your editing conditions stipulated very clearly “Bottom line: Stay civil”. If ChrisO can’t edit within those conditions, perhaps he should not be editing at all. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

When you have concerns about something that ChrisO is doing, please start by raising the issue with him directly, such as on his talkpage. If he does not respond in an adequate manner, then let me know, thanks. --Elonka 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. We'll see how that works. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested that he strike out the comment. He has seen my request, and ignored it. Also, note the clear violation your 0RR by Liftarn, who undid my last 2 edits with a false edit summary.Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.75.232.178

You might want to check out his contributions. I don't know how to fix that stuff. I know there is a tool for it but it says it is not for beginners. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like things are handled at this point. I looked at the anon's contribs, 79.75.232.178 (talk · contribs) and used popups to hover my mouse over the "hist" link next to each of the pages that they'd edited. On each one, I saw that other editors had already reverted the anon's changes, so all is good. And the anon has been blocked for 24 hours.

If you'd like to help out more with vandal fighting, that would be a wonderful way to participate in the Wikipedia culture. See WP:CUV for more. Or if you just want to report the "occasional" vandal, just list them at WP:AIV and they're usually dealt with quite rapidly.  :) --Elonka 18:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, I made a note of it for next time. Question-- you told me how to fix my preferences to warn if I do not do an edit summary and that seemed to work for awhile then quit. I thought I would go check it & make sure it was still checked but now I can't seem to find it. I really really like it and I can kick myself when I forget. Is there any way of going back short of doing another edit, and where the devil is that thing anyway? ]:( --Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Click on "My preferences" at the top of the page, then the "Editing" tab, then ensure that the checkbox is checked next to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". As for fixing old summaries, nope, once they're posted, they're pretty much in stone. But lots of people forget them, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. :) --Elonka 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quotes

User:Jayjg has inserted text that to my eye appears to include an outright lie. Would you consider correcting this? RedSpruce (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring it up at the talkpage there, and see what other editors think? --Elonka 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Please see your e-mail. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano

Giovanni De Stefano: what BLP violiations do you claim? There are multiple authorative sources that indicate that Mr De Stefano is not a solicitor/lawyer/barrister/attorney or whatever phrase you want to use in any country in the world including Italy and England which are the states he is most associated with; that he once claimed to have a PhD at a university that does not have any knowledge of him, that he has mutliple-convictions for fraud,is barred from the USA and New Zealand and was certified insane whilst in prision in Ireland in the 1970s. It is also easily established from a number of sources of record that he has claimed to represent people without basis and that he has often used the smoke and mirrors tactic of threatening to sue people who reveal his bizzare background. It is truely absurd to threaten a slander action against the Chief Justice of Ireland for comments Justice Murray made in court- but Mr De Stefano purported to do this. Please read amongst other sources: http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/features/devils-advocate-the-worlds-most-notorious-lawyer-defends-himself-859032.html, http://news.scotsman.com/comment/Defending-the-indefensible.2495512.jp and http://news.scotsman.com/giovannidistefano/Giovanni-Di-Stefano-The-Truth.2469479.jp Whilst the article makes some reference to some of these articles it doesn't comment on all issues raised by these newspapers, nor place appropriate emphasis on those parts of the articles it does mention. --89.19.88.161 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, Wikipedia is very cautious when it comes to negative information about living persons. See WP:BLP. If you feel that you have sufficient reliable sources, I recommend adding them to the talkpage at Talk:Giovanni di Stefano and making your case there for whichever information that you would like to add. It is also my strong recommendation that you create an account. Currently the page is protected from edits by anonymous and new users, but if you create an account and establish a constructive identity for a few days, you should be able to edit the article without much difficulty. You may also wish to start a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. --Elonka 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't set out a basis for locking the page. My contention is: if someone posts within the rules of Wikipedia the mere fact their name is not used is not here or there. All edits relating to Mr De Stefano's criminality and the like were sourced on the article you reverted and locked. He is a Walter Mitty character who seems to have money so he threatens legal action against people and the opening of the article is not appropriate. Number 1: he isn't a lawyer. A lawyer to my mind is a man or women who has been admitted to practice law in a state by the relevant institution in that country. He doesn't fall into this category. The 3 articles I cite above are enough of a basis to accept that fact. --89.19.88.161 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the facts of Di Stefano's case, and I did not revert the article. The simple matter is that the article is about a living person, and the article was in the middle of an edit war. In order to preserve stability, it's usual practice to protect an article that is in an edit war, regardless of which side is "right". In this case, I did not "full protect" the article (meaning no one except admins could edit it), I just "semi-protected" it, meaning that edits are only prevented from new and anonymous users. If you wish to edit the article, please obtain an established account. It costs nothing. See WP:LOGIN. --Elonka 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good one, Elonka. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX

Hey, I notice that you blocked ThuranX. With regard to his telling me to "go to hell", I can see that it was based on a misunderstanding. He thought I was being snidely dismissive, when that was not at all my intention. I can see how my comment was misunderstood, and how he got angry about it. Anyhow, as a misunderstanding, assuming this was the basis for the block I'd like to unblock ThuranX with an apology from me for poor phrasing on my part, a request to get a little fresh air and relax, and hopefully no hard feelings. I'm not offended, and I think that's more likely to calm him down than a 3-hour block. Is that OK with you, as the blocking admin? MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, but I didn't just block him for that one comment, I actually blocked him for a series of grossly uncivil comments. Check his contribs today, posts and edit summaries, and you'll see a long string of profanity: ThuranX (talk · contribs). Like check his "fucking stupid" comments at Talk:The Dark Knight (film).[5] If he's willing to promise to improve his behavior, I could see shortening the block, but it's already pretty short (just three hours). If he maintains his stance though that there's nothing wrong with cursing out other editors, then I think the block should stand. --Elonka 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it for the admin who reviews the {{unblock}} template since I am, I guess, involved. My sense is that he has a tendency to get frustrated and he does a poor job hiding it, but I don't know that a 3-hour block will improve that situation. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your intervention in AN/I over the race intelligence flap

this section] is of interest to me, and I'd start investigating and writing on it if I had time. What I've seen of your position seems correct. It is very, very important that editors with even "fringe" opinions and agendas be welcomed, even as other editors stand firm. It's too much for me to write about right now, but the real issue often boils down to incivility, and incivility breeds incivility. What I've seen happen is that there is a group of editors who believe they now have an NPOV article, really just fine. Some isolated editor comes along with a strong opinion. They reject him dismissively, sometimes even with gross incivility, I've seen administrators do this, which I find shocking. And he becomes uncivil. They revert him tag-teaming (possibly with no formal coordination at all, but the effect is the the same). So he edit wars, perhaps staying short of 3RR and perhaps not. Then they can arrange for him to be blocked. I actually saw, recently, an admin revert an editor, first edit to an article, uncivilly, then later block this same editor on different grounds, but, really, it's pretty obvious from the history what happened. "POV-pusher," the guy was called from day one. As if there is something wrong with that, if done civilly and within guidelines. There are ways, I believe, to deal with the problem, I'm experimenting with them myself, and there are experienced users, I'm sure, who know how to do it. And too many who don't know, including too many administrators. --Abd (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX

Acknowledged. Like I said on ThuranX's talk page, I jumped the gun based on MastCell's comments on ThuranX's talk page. It hadn't occurred to me at the time the block was issued, which was just a few seconds before your comment there, that there might be any basis for thinking that the block was based on anything but the MastCell argument. The delay in typing was, like I said, due to having to adjust the comments after the fact of your response, and actually, deciding whether to reblock him again or not. But, as I stupidly let the cat out of the bag by the unblock already, it seemed to be probably even worse to reblock him again. My apologies for acting without thinking the matter adequately through. For what it's worth, like I said when I applied for adminship, I'm basically an admin to work on project banners. This was one of the first times that I've been involved in a block at all, and I regret that the statements of MastCell seemed to be enough cause for an unblock. If you want to request removal of adminship, in all honesty, I would voluntarily return it. I tend to be fairly bright, unlikely as that sounds, but am frankly beginning to wonder whether it wouldn't be easier and more effective for me to withdraw it completely and spend a bit more time on what I actually wanted to do in the first place. I've been through "political" discussions before (not using that term in a negative sense), and still find a lot of them often impenetrable. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had ThuranX's page watched for some time now, I think ever since the Bob Dylan/Bus stop fiasco. I note he is rather often, shall we say, vocal(?), but have seen many others who are somewhat worse and don't get blocked. I think (though I haven't checked) we even disagreed then, actually. Dab gets rather "pointed" at times as well. Like I said, after MastCell's request, I jumped the gun and didn't think to even consider whether there might have been other motivations beyond that one, a mistake I doubt I will make again. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the enforcement of WP:CIVIL is horribly uneven. There's actually a discussion on this going on at Wikipedia talk:Civility. --Elonka 00:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to semi-protect this

Extensive trolling with the ANI archive is continuing. --Folantin (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Elonka 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still going on. Sleeper accounts? --Folantin (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some method to it, related to Lebanon, and Emile Riachi. My guess is multiple people using one computer,[6] with one or two being constructive, and the others not so much. --Elonka 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Atiyah

Please see the discussion at talk page. -Bharatveer (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

WP:RM are being crap, could you please move List of Minor Characters 2001 back to List of minor EastEnders characters (2001)? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but the "Minor" shouldn't have a capital letter, and the "2001" should be in brackets (to fit in with all the others). Thanks though. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi Elonka. Since you've been doing some facilitation with Isr-Pales related issues, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. I placed this note at WP:IPCOLL talk page: There's a dispute among editors at Talk:Battle of Jenin. Would some editors/admins who are not involved help facilitate or resolve the disagreement(s)? (The dispute concerns the use of the term 'massacre' as well as other aspects. Some arguments have discussed previously either on that Talk page, see archives, or elsewhere.) Thanks Elonka. If you decide not to deal with this, perhaps you know somebody else who might? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I hope you don't mind, Elonka, but I posted at User talk:QuackGuru#What is a revert? a paraphrase of part of the rule you had posted at Talk:Quackwatch. To be on the safe side, I stated that you might or might not agree that it means the same thing. I was attempting to help QuackGuru understand the situation by writing the rule in such a way that no special definition of the word "revert" is required. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not mind. :) I've definitely been having trouble communicating the restrictions to QuackGuru, and/or he has been having trouble communicating his understanding of them. So any help that you can offer would be appreciated.  :) Also, if you're on IMs at all, feel free to give me a ping, and I can fill you in on more of the details around the situation. --Elonka 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist again

He's back from a week's break, and trying to game his restriction again. Here he inserts some completely unsourced original research he's invented solely for the purpose of associating Israeli settlers with the term "colonist". This game-playing is tiresome. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy

Elonka, could you please address the overt POV-pushing, original research and attempted whitewashing that Tundrabuggy is currently engaged in? You'll recall that Tundrabuggy was disputing the use of a reporter called Ed O'Loughlin as a source on the grounds that he's a "contentious reporter" (i.e. some pro-Israel groups don't like him). Now Tundrabuggy is attempting to remove a point sourced to O'Loughlin ([7] - note the removal of the point about "forensic or ballistic qualifications or experience" and the lack of an edit summary) because he doesn't believe it's "the truth". I've explained in some detail why we don't delete sourced content on the grounds of personal disagreement (see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Nahum Shahaf) but Tundrabuggy, as usual, isn't listening. It's a patent violation of NPOV and your own editing conditions, and I'm getting very close to preparing an RFC on Tundrabuggy because of his endless tendentiousness. I'd prefer not to have yet more of my time wasted by this editor, so I'd appreciate it if you could have a word with him about his recent conduct. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

From where I sit, I see two editors who are equally accusing each other of POV-pushing, but both seem to be operating in good faith. Tundrabuggy, however, seems to be doing a somewhat better job of keeping his temper. My recommendation is to stick with the Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing. Stay civil, don't revert (one of your edits got close to that line),[8] and keep trying to find a compromise, which I think will lead to a stronger article. --Elonka 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, as I've said before to you by e-mail, you are not dealing with the NPOV problems at all. Your conditions say nothing about NPOV and as far as I know you've never counselled any of the editors involved about NPOV. Tundrabuggy has made it clear that he disbelieves what the source says and is removing sourced material on the basis of that personal belief. That is a categorical violation of NPOV and NOR. Will you counsel him about what NPOV and NOR requires, or not? I'm baffled and concerned that you appear to be more interested in dealing with civility and reversions than fundamental policies like NPOV and NOR. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already an ongoing mediation, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah. As was discussed at the talkpage, I am dealing with the issues of user conduct. For issues related to article content, please contact the mediator, Wizardman. --Elonka 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting sourced material on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't "user conduct"? That's novel. I guess I'll just have to prepare an RfC on Tundrabuggy, if you're not prepared to enforce basic policies. One other point - your editing conditions do not override those basic policies. If someone violates NPOV by removing sourced material on the grounds that they disagree with what it says - a categorical NPOV violation - then I reserve the right to restore that material. (And I will be doing so as an admin, not just as an editor.) ChrisO (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For you to use admin tools or access on that article, where you are heavily involved, would be quite unwise. Please leave that for uninvolved admins. Also, if you revert the article in violation of the editing conditions, that too would be extremely unwise. I recommend that you take a break from editing the article for awhile. --Elonka 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to use admin tools, but I do intend to vigorously maintain quality standards, especially concerning NPOV. If you attempt to put your editing conditions above standing policy, that would be extremely unwise on your part. I think you might benefit from standing aside and letting another uninvolved administrator handle the user conduct issues on that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)