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)

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)

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).[4] 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)

Further to your comment on ThuranX's talk, I would like to point out this comment recently made towards me... [5]

In it I am not only accused of believing child molestation to be normal, but that I have and would continue to advocate that position. I would welcome you to look at the reat of my short discourse with ThuranX where you will find such edit summaries as "get real" for example. I have repeatedly asked him to remain civil, but he refuses to do so. Nowhere in my text is the slightest suggestion of that which he accuses.

The disussion is related to a subject that can be somewhat sensitive, however, that's all the more reason to remain civil and discuss it from a neutral point of view, per the definition of what the subject actually is, and not emotive value judgements incorrectly ascribed to a term. (to be perfectly clear, the term is pederasty, which refers to romantic involvement between a man and a boy rather than any sexual conduct that may be present in any given relationship... and it's not even with reference to anything in the modern world or a specific relationship - the disagreement is over it's use to describe what it describes by definition in the ancient world- ancient greece being a perfect example) Crimsone (talk) 20:56, 24 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. Your editing conditions are fundamentally flawed if they do not allow NPOV to be maintained. 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)

On the topic of user conduct, I belive that vote stacking as attempted by ChrisO is inappropriate user conduct that requires some admin intervention. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What vote? This isn't an AfD. Kindly cease trolling. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, stop with the "trolling" comments. Please take a break for 24 hours, and work on something else? Thanks, Elonka 20:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In re: Sockpuppetry, Indef Blocks, etc.

Per User talk:Slakr, I agree with you - but, on the other hand, didn't want to unblock a grawp sockpuppet. That might be conservative on my part, though. If no response is forthcoming, would an ANI thread be in order, d'ya think, if only to get more eyes on the subject? It's not been that long since we pinged Slakr, but I note that he has not edited since 18:36 UTC. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if Slakr doesn't respond, this should go to ANI. I'm just not seeing any reasoning to support indef blocks on these accounts. --Elonka 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quartermaster in particular has been editing quite constructively since April 2007. I seriously doubt grawp has that kind of patience. WP:AN seems the best way to go if a consensus of three isn't enough to unblock QM. –xeno (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's been two hours and change now, I'd concur. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just heading out the door but whoever writes up the AN thread can mention that I've supported unblocking at the very least of QM, I'll have to take a closer look at the other two when I get home. –xeno (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All three should be unblocked. Looks like they were three Recent Changes patrollers who inadvertently used a template that had been hacked with a Grawp image. I have posted details at User talk:Slakr. --Elonka 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

makes sense now. should be done immediately. –xeno (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

It's all cleared up! Thanks for your help I really appreciate it! If you ever need help with an unblocking I am so there for you! The Llama! (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. This was definitely an interesting puzzle to solve! I felt like I was working on Kryptos for awhile. :) --Elonka 22:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocks thinggy

Lol, apparently I need to make it a point not to edit until I've gotten some caffeine in my system every morning. :P Thanks for keeping an eye out, and more importantly, thanks for being rational about the whole thing. :D Anyway, thanks again, and sorry for having to trouble you. :( Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for unblocking me :)

Yes, I am a New Page Patroller. I just started with Twinkle and NPP, and I soon plan to do recent changes on existing articles. What's funny is that this happened and I haven't been patrolling or using Twinkle for even 24 hours yet and this happens :P.

Yeah, I'm still learning which templates to use, and I didn't notice any issues with any of the ones I applied.

Again, thanks,

--Mooshykris (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Spamming me on behalf of Elonka Dunin

You just sent an email to my WP account on behalf of Elonka Dunin. Please do not do this again. I have no interest in whether Elonka Dunin is appearing on US television talking about cryptography. Please do not use my wikipedia email for communicating information on Elonka Dunin. I already know plenty of number theorists and cryptographers in real life, including amongst my friends Richard Taylor, Hendrik Lenstra and Alex Selby, who solved the Eternity puzzle. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are posting this on my Wikipedia page, as this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. As a reminder, I did respond to an email you had sent to me. But I most definitely did not use the Wikipedia "e-mail this user" feature, and there is no spam involved. --Elonka 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. The secondary account *******@****.** was created only for wikipedia and is used for nothing else. I have a lot of other email accounts, including three professional ones at quite different locations. You must have kept a record of this email from a reply I sent you on June 9th 2008, because otherwise it's secret. Please do not use it for any other purposes not connected with wikipedia. Nobody else does, including many other administrators. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Raju - Atiyah Case

Please see this attack page created today by User:Bharatveer, already nominated for speedy delete by me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bravo and well done!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		It's pseudo-long, but just read this wiki-user-talk-thingy-thread for why Elonka gets this Barnstar (geeks and hackers need pay special attention): [9]. Transparent disclosure: I have met Elonka in the real world. Follow the link anyway. This was VERY cool real "defense of wikipedia" work. If I didn't know you, me and two other users would likely be eternally wiki-screwed for no good reason. Quartermaster (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Perfect barnstar for me, thanks.  :) --Elonka 19:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

al-Durrah

Elonka, ChrisO at the talk page is threatening a major overhaul of the al-Durrah page. Can he just do a major rewrite like that? I, and others, have been working hard at improving the article a little at a time. The idea that he can rewrite the whole thing according to his view and without collaborating is ...well... frightening... ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, he sure can. Then again, anyone else can do it too. So just because he (or anyone else) rewrites it, doesn't mean it's in stone, it's still going to be going through the filters of multiple other editors reviewing and changing things, towards finding neutrality. And nothing is being completely wiped out by his changes... All the old text is still available in history, so if anyone really liked an old section, they can pull it out, and rework it to see if it fits better in the newer version, and so forth.

In general, article expansion is good. If ChrisO is on a major expansion drive, there are different ways that you can handle it... One is to make tweaks as he's working, and another is to sit back and wait for a few days until he runs out of steam (no one can keep up that level of expansion work forever), and then move in and see how you like the new version and if any changes are needed. Or find some level in between. Remember, there is no deadline, we can take our time while working on an article. And since he is not allowed to remove sources, the core foundation of the article will still be there. If it turns out that he's deleting all information from certain sources, then a course correction might be needed, but my guess is that he won't do that. In my opinion, ChrisO is working in good faith, and genuinely wants to provide a high quality article. There is just disagreement between editors on what "high quality" means, which is why we need the tweaks here and there. So carry on, you've been doing a good job in helping to keep the article neutral, and trying to find compromise wording. As long as everyone continues working in good faith, towards the same goal of "high quality article in adherence with policies, and which reflects positively on Wikipedia", then progress is being made. :) --Elonka 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I tend to specialise in rewriting contentious articles, often ones which have been the subject of edit wars in the past. Two examples I'd point to are Battle of Vukovar and Borovo Selo killings, both of which were the subject of edit wars between Serbs and Croats before I rewrote them. My rewrite of Kosovo War four years ago is still largely extant - I was elected an administrator on the basis of that and similar work, so I have a long-standing track record in that field (as my string of FAs, GAs and DYKs will indicate).

As for removing sources, I can't guarantee not to do that, since I consciously try to use high-quality mainstream sources in preference to fringe or otherwise less reputable sources. What I try to do, however, is to ensure that the point on which the source is being cited is preserved, while citing it using a more reliable source. So if I see something sourced to what I see as a questionable source (e.g. a personal website or fringe publication), I try to find a higher-quality source such as a mainstream publication that makes the same point. If I remember rightly, I've already done this in a few places in the article. I find that this helps in avoiding arguments about whether this website or that one is a reliable source - if we use only sources that every reasonable person can agree is reliable, a major area of contention is dealt with from the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Klaksonn's case

Hi Elonka. I don't know if you remember the Klaksonn sockpuppetry case. Anyway, there have been some updates which can be found here. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --Elonka 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs is violating the rules of editing Quackwatch

He just removed material from the article [10]. Please DO something! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the diff, but didn't see the problem. His changes seem to be reasonable attempts towards finding a compromise. If you feel that he buried an actual revert in there, please show me "before and after" diffs. In the meantime, you are welcome to continue editing the page, to try and find a middle-ground. --Elonka 02:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

You left me a message saying that you could coach? If you could that would be awesome! The Llama! (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help a bit. My first recommendation is, to improve your userpage. If you want to be an admin, you have to "walk the walk". Add some more information about yourself, and, yes, thin out the userboxes a bit. Having lots of userboxes on a page, tends to make you look very young, and some people, right or wrong, will equate "youth" with "immaturity". Sort of like if you walked into a job interview wearing a t-shirt and torn jeans, the interviewer may come to a snap judgment, regardless of your actual skillz. So I recommend adding a bit of information about who you are, which topic areas that you enjoy participating in, and maybe a a couple sentences about your wiki-philosophy. This will be helpful, not just to you, but also to me, as it will give me more of a sense of what you're interested in. --Elonka 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Prism-Armageddon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Prism-Armageddon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:Fowler&fowler and User:Mathsci

Hi Elonka, I'm writing to you because you left a welcome message on my talk page and because you visited the Atiyah talk page to view the controversy there. As you, and another administrator User:CBM pointed out, we can only discuss the verifiability of the sources involved here. However, User:Fowler&fowler has repeatedly used ad-hominem attacks amounting to deliberate defamation. For example, on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, where I started a discussion on whether a petition by eminent academics counts as a source, F&f contributed the following: " ... scientist, C. K. Raju, of unremarkable achievement, who is looking, by hook or by crook, to get some publicity" and then again, "unremarkable scientist with grandiosity inversely proportional to achievement". If you look through the talk page, you will see that F&f has continued to make slanderous, and demonstrably factually incorrect, statements of this form not only against Prof. Raju but also against other living people. For example, on the talk page, F&f claims: "All Raju has (if he has them) is a bunch of historians who couldn't integrate sec3(x) to save their lives.".

What recourse do we have? Can we delete these comments since they are not pertinent to the discussion of the controversy? Since Wikipedia is so careful about what to include and what not to include in a BLP, why are statements of this sort allowed to stand?

User:Mathsci has alleged at the RS noticeboard that I am a "sockpuppet of currently blocked User:Bharatveer." This is, evidently, an attempt to distract attention from the topic by attacking me rather than my argument. (For the record, MathSci's argument is that I am a `sockpuppet' because I am aware of the restrictions imposed on Bharatveer which is suspicious since I'm a newbie. However, these restrictions are publicly visible on Bharatveer's talk page!) Similarly, on the BLP noticeboard, Mathsci has similarly tried to allege some association between me and Bharatveer. I dont know if you have access to IP addresses, but if you do, you can easily check that this is false! At another time, Mathsci threatened a user with a ban because of the use of the word 'Eurocentric'. MathSci promptly followed this up by branding me and other users, `Indian extremists'.

What recourse do we have. I am perfectly willing to accept a decision that this controversy cannot be included on the page, particularly if other neutral editors and users on the BLP and RS noticeboards feel so. However, I feel that F&f and MathSci are preventing an honest discussion by attacking me and using poorly sourced ad hominem arguments against Raju.

I feel that an intervention by an administrator in the two noticeboards will help. Furthermore, I feel that User:Fowler&fowler should be held to account for repeatedly making slanderous statements and restrained from doing so in the future. Thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. User:Bharatveer is currently blocked for his unexplained use of VPN. There has been a discussion on Wikiproject Mathematics on him and his felllow editors determined to introduce an attack section into Atiyah's BLP (and elsewhere) without reliable sources. At this stage it might be appropriate to put out a checkuser on the SPA's User:Perusnarpk and User:Abhimars. Many other editors and administrators are following the disruptive actions of these tiresome troublemakers, including User:Nishkid64, User:David Eppstein, User:CBM, User:Charles Matthews, User:JackSchmidt and User:R.e.b.. Most of Perusnarpk arguments above - without diffs - are inaccurate. It has taken him at least two days to explain his almost immediate familiarity with the ArbCom editing restrictions on User:Bharatveer. Perhaps he might explain why he is only here on WP to insert this attack material? Most wikipedia editors, and certainly me, spend most of their time adding encyclopedic content to wikipedia. Has he ever thought of doing that? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, this user has started forum shopping. Because I advised User:Abhimars against using the extremist phrases "eurocentic" and "exposing western idols", he has reported me on the wikiquette noticeboard. Can this tiresomely disruptive SPA really be a recent arrival? I am too busy editing Differential geometry of surfaces to follow him around. Sorry, Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein and Nishkid64 have now advised this editor on WP:BLP policy, so hopefully this problem should now have ended. Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)