Jump to content

User talk:Elen of the Roads: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 354: Line 354:


Elen, could you please point me to the discussion regarding the so-called "courtesy blanking" of pages relating to Peter Damian? I find it rather surprising that we are wiping out pertinent notices with regard to a banned, known problem user. Thank you in advance. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 08:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Elen, could you please point me to the discussion regarding the so-called "courtesy blanking" of pages relating to Peter Damian? I find it rather surprising that we are wiping out pertinent notices with regard to a banned, known problem user. Thank you in advance. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 08:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
:There has been a discussion with the Arbitration committee offwiki and also at [[User talk:Coren]] (where yes I know he is editing through an IP). The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Wikipedia - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim. There is I feel in any case not really a lot of point in endlessly tagging IPs (which change) and socks with a handful of edits. I have certainly seen in other cases that after a certain point it just draws more attention to disruptive editors and its better to [[WP:DENY]]. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads#top|talk]]) 12:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
:There has been a discussion with the Arbitration committee offwiki and also at [[User talk:Coren]] (where yes I know he is editing through an IP). The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Wikipedia - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim. There is I feel in any case not really a lot of point in endlessly tagging IPs (which change) and socks with a handful of edits. I have certainly seen in other cases that after a certain point it just draws more attention to the socking and its better to [[WP:DENY|ignore it]]. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads#top|talk]]) 12:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:00, 13 June 2011

Elen, I wonder if you would give me your opinion on what is going on at the Tree shaping article. It seems to me that Blackash, who is co founder of Pooktre, is exhibiting a serious conflict of interest in the way she is editing and (since being banned from editing the article) trying to influence other editors in matters having commercial and personal significance.

This has been a very long running issue to which I came as a result of an RfC and I would be happy to provide diffs if it will help. I have taken it back again to COI/N [1] but Blackash still cannot see any COI. What is your opinion? Do you see a COI? This has been through several attempts at resolution with no success. What is the best way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor with a conflict of interest is normally advised not to edit the article solo, but to ensure that they have consensus on the talkpage prior to any edit (this is the etiquette that Richard Gill was reminded about in the Monty Hall case). I think Blacklash's conflict of interest it clear, I think Blacklash's generally disruptive editing was sufficient to earn her a topic ban from editing in article space, however the discussion at AN seemed to indicate that she could continue to contribute on talkpages even though she has a COI, because that is how the COI policy works. I think WhatamIdoing has the right of it here - the topic ban did not include talk space, and if you want to stop Blacklash editing in talkspace, you will either have to go back to AN or start some other process such as RfAR, and argue that her editing is disruptive, not just COI. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you advice. I am glad the you see a clear COI, which others, including Blackash, do not. This has been going on for years and needs to stop. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in the field of Tree shaping. I few facts Martin left out.
  • I've always stated I have a potential COI (since I found out years ago about COI)
  • My edits have never been found with COI
  • I have been accused of editing with a COI just like Martin has done above with no evidence. This has happened through out the whole talk page.
  • I am not aware of any admin ever giving me a warring about inappropriate editing.
  • In the past SilkTork an admin was asked to look into my editing on Tree shaping and he stated no clear COI. There have been two admins (SilkTork is one) aware that I was editing Tree shaping and related articles to which I'm expert in. Neither of these admins have stated I've edited inappropriately.
  • I have a history of talking about any edit of mine that may be a problem, and being willing to compromise. In the last year or so any edit I wanted to do that was even close to being seen as COI edit, I've gone to the appropriate noticeboard and got a consensus about weather to do the edit or not. Most of the time other editors have agreed with the edit I wanted to do.
  • This asking for input from other editors is one of the reasons SilkTork gives for wanting my Topic ban (SilkTork listed at ANI for Topic ban), as it is wasting to much of other editors time on what he considers on very minor article. COI was claimed (not by SilkTork) again with no supporting evidence to support my Topic ban at ANI.
  • What is the evidence that lead you to your conclusion about COI and my supposed disruptive editing? Blackash have a chat 13:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Becky. I see from the RfAR page that we are now at 9 for 0 on accepting the case, so I hope to have more conversation about this there. I'll restrict my remarks now to a general statement for now, as discussion of the evidence should take place on the case pages. In general, conflict of interest, or the potential for conflict of interest, is a matter of fact and not an accusation of bad behaviour. We have rules that judges may not try their own sons to prevent the verdict being challenged even if the judge remains unmoved. In your case, the possibility for conflict of interest is clear but is not a criticism of you - you have a definite and entirely legitimate business interest, and that has the potential to lead to challenges of your editing. The question to be decided by the RfAr is whether there actually is a breach of the various Wikipedia editing policies, particularly neutral point of view, what to do if there is, and indeed, what to do if it is demonstrated that there is not. The behaviour of all parties will be examined. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about keeping the discussion at the RfAF and thanks for your reply and clarifying about COI and what is happening at the RfAR. Blackash have a chat 02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I don't appreciate being shouted at, or being told "let me make this perfectly clear," and I'd appreciate in future if you'd reconsider your tone toward me and other editors. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and I apologise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, there is absolutely no valid reason for you to stop being the drafting arbitrator, no matter what some of the commenters might be saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

?

Why was I added to the Noleander case? I hardly think i'm involved. SilverserenC 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Elen, but I imagine it's because your conduct is being discussed there.  Roger Davies talk 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is? I haven't been following the case at all. I disengaged after the Wikiquette thing. SilverserenC 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[2] [3] and [4] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I...okay? I have had a multitude of users state that my concern was legitimate and I have already apologized and acknowledged that my wording was poor and clarified that I meant no disrespect to anyone. You can read the Wikiquette discussion for proof of that. So, what exactly do I need to do now, since i've been added to the case? I certainly can't comment on much related to Noleander, since this case had gone far beyond the specific incident that was raised at ANI. SilverserenC 15:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you want to do is to write a statement that refers to your behaviour and responds to LHvU's statement. Use diffs to show where you have already responded to concerns etc. You don't need to say anything about Noleander unless you want to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the note of the below section, when is my deadline? SilverserenC 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the original deadline set for submission of evidence was today, but that's unfair to you. You need the chance to get a statement together - say by close of play on Friday, to give you a chance to do that and also respond in the workshop if you want to do that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that for the evidence page, I just need to make my own evidence section. It's a lot like the longer RfC's. But what exactly do I need to do for the Workshop page and what would I be responding to there? SilverserenC 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The links for where you are mentioned on the workshop page are up above. You are able to comment in the 'comments by parties' section if you feel it would help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE - I'm going to be off air for the next few days due to a family illness. If you have any other questions, the clerks or the other Arbs will be able to help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline is okay

Elen: A week ago, I asked about extending the deadline for evidence in the Noleander arbitration case, but I was able to find some time today to submit my final evidence. So, the original deadline of 6 April is fine, and I no longer need an extension. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

You closed the MfD for Portal:Cartoon Network as speedy deletion, and it still isn't deleted. I checked the deletion log of Portal:Cartoon Network, it said that you deleted it but I can still see it. On the log, it has nothing about restoring. How can I still see the portal? I am not a sysop or Researcher. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted at the request of the creator; the creator has since chosen to recreate it. – iridescent 20:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Kavner

Should Julie Kavner go under the category American_people_of_Jewish_descent? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Merging 2 articles together

1. I think the 2 article Eskimo#Dialects and Canadian English should be merged together because there is a lack of information in Canadian English about the Northern Canada accent. Could youhelp me do the merge? 2. I have 2 references that can be used for the character BK in The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) to show that he's gay: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32160866/ns/today-entertainment/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/ladies/characters/bk.shtml But I'm unsure how to add the references. Could you help me? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Elen, you may want to see the most recent comment on Neptunekh2's talk page before responding; it's a slightly different question there, but closely related, and this may have already been answered at the help desk. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Abuse details

Greetings! Please add to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger brand new details about once hidden evil deeds of this NS extremist. He perhaps after drinking some beer in his NS hideout, finally revealed his true extremist NS intentions:

With regards, 78.159.115.175 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Jesus

Hi, greetings! Could you tell me where I exactly removed sourced information of birth place, here the difference of the versions: [5]. Pensionero 16:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misread. I thought you'd removed a paragraph, but I think it had just moved down the page a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism question

Elen, I'm not clear on the procedure that pertains to this vandalism from an educational institution IP. ("Educational" perhaps in quotation marks.) I've left warnings, but have just left a dire one I have no power to carry out. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And someone's changed my dire warning, as if this were garden-variety "hi joe" vandalism. It isn't. It's racially offensive. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind, someone's addressed this (and I see also that I had previewed but not posted my second warning, which was the dire one, before someone else left the inappropriately mild warning). I really must get up to speed on procedure if I'm going to be such a vigilante. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeMike does definitely have his uses. Someone must have reported the IP at AIV. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking sherry

Commenting here as Thumperward obviously wants to close that discussion off at ani. I don't think you're right that the judges are simply misguided or perhaps drunk as you suggest. Eady and one or two others see themselves as carrying out what the Human Rights legislation lays down. They have mentioned specific points, for example protecting young children from the harmful effects of tabloid coverage. I think the real problem arises from the fact that companies being legal personalities, they have extended these protections to some really grotesque cases like Trafigura. It isn't clear to me anyway why the tabloids need a right to print prurient details of people's sex lives because they are famous actors or footballers. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problems with an injunction banning the News of the World from printing scandal. The problems are the attempt to extend the injunction beyond the borders of UK jurisdiction, and the attempt to extend it beyond the press - the thing that has finally got Parliament off its arse is that at least one of these injunctions would theoretically prevent someone from talking to their MP about the subject, which is a usurpation of parliamentary privilege not seen since the days of Old Noll. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the latter certainly appears to be a breach of the traditional rights and also of Magna Carta - yet according to a judge interviewed on R4 the other night, it is precisely what Parliament has decreed via acceptance of the HRA because it supercedes previous law on the subject. In other words, parliament needs to pass fresh legislation stipulating the limits of privacy. Parliamentary privilege is anyway rather shaky legally as we've seen in numerous cases over the last few years - not least that ghastly action of the previous Home Secretary sending police round to Damian Green's office to take away his files on the most spurious grounds. I have come to doubt there is anything much in our traditional "constitution" - certainly not much to defend our so-called "democracy". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will not get disagreement from this quarter as to the last part. Nothing short of the grave suspicion of actual High Treason would warrant that kind of incursion, and as far as I can see, Mr Green's offence was only to be behaving like a politician. As to the rest, the HRA was not intended to supercede a better law. S4 of the HRA makes it fairly clear that it is not the role of the courts to override or set aside primary legislation, preventing someone from communicating a matter with their MP is a breach of Article 11, and Article 8 does not say It is required that there shall be extensive interference by a public authority with the exercise of other rights in support of persons claiming to be exercising this right. I think what we are seeing is an attempt by a group of judges to change the law from their side. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome response

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at OpenInfoForAll's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why wouldn't he jump in feet first?

And why, pray, would you have thought that? It's not as though arbcom had the sense to admonish SS in the Noleander case, is it? Despite pointed remarks by highly respected editors. Sigh. I suppose I really will have to see about running Darwinbish for arbcom next year. Or Baby Tex, maybe. Bishonen | talk 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Arrr ooohhh aahhhh. Baby Tex (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, Mrs. Shonen, Baby Tex is only just now beginning to babble. His Finding of Facts may be a little garbled if he were to be on ArbCom. 'Course that might be an improvement over most FoFs put forth by the current ArbCom! ;-) Tex (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a seriously embiggened vocabulary from "Wahhh!" And it's not Bradspeak either. Baby Tex will do just fine. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Makes perfect sense to me Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arb activity status

Hi Elen. Are you aware that you are currently listed at WP:ACMEM as inactive? Paul August ☎ 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. I was inactive for Noleander, stayed inactive for AE (mostly because I hadn't been around to keep up with the arguments, of which I gather there were several). I should be active from this point fwd, as I'm drafting on tree shaping. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Simple request

DeCausa pointed that someone was an admin, I guess he meant you. Before I brought this issue to the AN/I page, I read over what it says at the top, and I looked to see if it was the most appropriate venue. It seemed to be the right place. I brought this issue with the hope of finding a thoughtful and considerate and gentle admin who would work with the editors at the Mexican-American War article to resolve their issue.

The top of the AN/I page has this warning: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion"

The debate at the Mexican-American War article has been going on for months. My hope was to find solutions, not find people who were going to nitpick and fight about unrelated discussions. I don't have a perfect solution, but I am *trying*. I feel like so many of the editors in the AN/I right now are simply ready to fight and say how lame this is, rather than be encouraging and supportive. I'm at AN/I to specifically ask for help. Now, I want to say, I agree that we don't get to control what others will do or say, but given how touchy the situation has been at times, I was hoping for some degree of civility at AN/I. I feel like someone has just ripped the rug out from under me.

My request to you is very simple. Will you please close the AN/I thread? It has become a massive distraction. Thank you, regardless of what you decide. Yours, Avanu (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've just closed it (I don't think it requires an admin to do so). You could have done it. What you can't do, though, is just close the bits you don't like [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, didn't last [7]. Never mind William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Proposed decision

Hi Elen. I just wanted to clarify one thing: you don't intend to vote in this case, correct? Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven#t been able to keep up with it, so no I didn't intend to vote. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things I need to discuss

1. Why was category List_of_fictional_characters_who_can_manipulate_wind deleted? 2. Should The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) be listed in List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters because BK a main character is gay: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ladies/characters/bk.shtml Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash evidence section

I asked for some advice from Salvio about the length of my evidence section at Tree shaping arbitration evidence page Which he give here and I've now done. I'm contacting you because I next read a new guideline and it states I should have contacted you first about the length of my evidence section. I seem to have done things the wrong way round sorry, I thought I should let you know what was happening. Blackash have a chat 02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neptunekh2

At what point do you think his actions have/will cross-over from being good intentioned but misguided efforts to help, into being good intentioned but ultimately disruptive attempts to help? In other words, do you think WP:NOTTHERAPY or WP:COMPETENCE have begun to apply here? It seems like the message about not disrupting multiple people's talk pages simply isn't getting through. Furthermore, he has recently (or maybe it's been a while) been creating categories linking a variety of different ethnic and national groups that are not populated and also unlikely to be populated (such as Category:American people of Peruvian-Jewish descent and Category:Fictional Saint Lucian people. Its obviously always a touchy issue when we consider whether or not someone's mental condition makes them capable of contributing productively to Wikipedia, and I'm sure that not just I but most editors would prefer to find some way to get through to him about how to work here and interact with other editors. Any thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a conundrum, isn't it. The big problem was when she (I think they are female, but not 100% sure on that) was creating copyvios, now she's just moved into the 'needing more support than an editor reasonably ought to need' category. I'm not sure how much they contribute that's productive, but they don't do anything that's really disruptive, so it is hard to know what to do for the best. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite the pickle...I suppose things will keep stumbling along as is until someone at the Help Desk (those appear to be the editors Neptunekh2 interacts with most) gets fed up with the issue and seeks out administrative recourse. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her last round of odd queries did turn up Looty Pijamini, who I would otherwise never have heard of. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Elen, I don't know where to go so I've come to you, this editor is basically a huge drain on resources and creates prolific amounts of rubbish, for me this is basically vandalism as she takes no heed of any messages or guidelines, she constantly asks questions about including information, when it has been pointed out numerous times that iMDB etc. are not reliable sources and also has an obsession with classifying and creating categories that do not take into account WP:OVERCAT.
Honestly, take a look at the contributions, apart from creating one-sentence articles about stuff that is probably not going to meet the notability guidelines and then asking on the desks for someone to "clean them up", or obsessively categorizing people into categories in which they probably don't belong, she also specializes in creating completely unnecessary categories that are either duplicates or have no chance of passing a CSD request (two that I recently nominated have gone). Examples:

Okay, >>I'm fed up now, do you realize we are talking about a few days' edits? This is really disruptive, I am fairly new here and have seen lots of stuff that needs fixing but allowing a user like this to prolifically add content that is almost immediately a candidate for deletion is suicide! Should I just ignore it and patrol other more useful stuff? What's the point? Wikipedia will drown in a pile of its own inconsistencies if we allow this.

The person has been repeatedly pointed to guidelines that explain notability, reliable sources, overcategorization etc. but she seems to feel that Wikipedia should reflect her own personal hobbies and interests to the exclusion of all others and obsesses about trivia and fictional characters that 99.9% of all wombats couldn't care less about.

So, something needs to be done, even if a permanent ban is in order, I'm sorry but I do not wish to waste my time editing a collective project if people are allowed to come and trample all over the good work done by many in respect of consensus, whilst permanently ignoring all attempts to communicate with them, through wilful volition or incapacity.

This also takes a hell of a lot of time, as you well know, seeing as you are one of the most frequent editors to her talk page. Respectfully. CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand... Let me have a word. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My, you have been busy, thanks. Well, I hope the user takes some heed of what you posted, for me the main problem is their prolific enthusiasm without taking on board any of the category creation criteria for example. Yes, I did come across Looty Pijamini too, but if the user creates one useful page for ten or so that are going to be deleted, then the ratio is not very helpful. I do hope this person takes on board at least some of what you are suggesting. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that doesn't seem promising :( Have to see what they do tomorrow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just saw that too, just for fun went to check her contribs and had to laugh at all the wierd questions she posts all over the place, multiple times to the annoyance of other editors, apparently. Really does not seem to want to take on board that Wikipedia is not Facebook or some such thing. :-( and it was so well written, friendly and so on. If you keep an eye on her tomorrow, I will deal with the categories that I listed above and propose most for SD. CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Given that one is hard pressed to find ten people to populate Category:Fictional Belgian people, Fictional American people of Belgian descent is nonsense. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, saw you were over at Neptune's talk page again but this time getting stroppy. For me the major problems with this user are: obsession with trivia (in general about TV shows, manga charcters and so on); refusal to heed any wiki policies regarding notability, reliable sources and so on; prolific editing where she will make minor changes (like adding a cat) to 30-odd articles in one night; ridiculousness or unsuitabality of said categorization; and repeated creation of trivial intersection categories.
An example of the latter: Neptune comes across the article about 30 Minutes or Less and sees the Category:American criminal comedy films, ah but in the lede it says that the film is American, German and Canadian produced, so what do we get? Two new categories for Canadian and German criminal comedy films which she then tags the film article with. I have removed them and proposed a SD.
Otherwise adding this as an external link to the Cordelia Chase article because it has the supposed date of birth of the character. Go take a look, it's just a fansite full of trivia, so I removed it as its place is not in EL. I did reply on the talk page to try help ease her confusion but you know the old head and brick wall thing? CaptainScreebo Parley! 01:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think we just got an answer, and not a good one, at the bottom of the page from Neptunekh2. There is absolutely no way to consider Elen's very kind message a personal attack, and her thinking it is seriously undermines the likelihood of her success here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, this does not bode well for the future. CaptainScreebo Parley! 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pet:)

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Captain Screebo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Troll

I read the talkpage, but it's looking more like a content dispute from here. You are welcome to file an Sockpuppet investigation about RaviC and the IP - if they are the same person, Ravic is using the IP to avoid the appearance of edit warring, but I'm not sure they are the same person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubts it is content dispute and the tone of RaviC and that of the ANON IP are rather similar, if you read them closely. Anyway, could I request you now to Semi-PP the page for a bit until 18th May when we close that discussion for the consensus building. Thanks much and best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not seeing activity that would warrant protection - the IP editor you were concerned with has not reverted again.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

terima kasih

Thanks for your support. I'll forgive the block of Gold Hat. Seems stuck at keeping me bound, though.

Bye, Barong 09:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still hopeful it might be unstuck, but we'll see. As I explained to Bish, I blocked Gold Hat with the intention of trying to stop you digging yourself in deeper - although I wouldn't say it worked particularly well as a tactic :( --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query about protocol

Hi, having just seen you editing Anna's sandbox, I would appreciate your comment about this statement by an admin. I am wondering whether he is aware of just how much of a problem there is here, and how subtle some of the issues are (eg: articles being assembled with multiple copyvios etc).

As I see it, someone has to grasp this nettle because there are hundreds of the things lying around, numerous people (including other admins) have passed comment on the problems that lie in them and the unfortunate contributor has both been blocked for copyvio in the past and is now subject to a block on creating new articles in mainspace. I am not sure how familiar you are with the recent goings-on, but the very fact that you have made a couple of notes on the sandbox page + fixed a few of the problematic situations raised by myself and others, suggests that you may have more of an understanding than perhaps Anthony Bradbury does. Is he misguided? Or are those of us who have been trying to sort out the problem the misguided ones? Oh, and it is perfectly ok if you would rather not respond. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the purpose of the sandbox is to prevent harsh decisions being made by individuals. There has to be some basic consensus before things are done. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment here [8]. I recommend filing a WP:CCI and pointing to the evidence in your sandbox.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your thoughts. I'll read through the CCI process properly later, but has struck me immediately is "if you have an on-going dispute with another editor, you should avoid filing a CCI case against that editor, and seek larger input at an appropriate forum". The contributor considers both myself and Anna to be not neutral, although (as I have said at the AN/I discussion) his definition of a neutral editor seems generally to be "someone who agrees with me". I will have a think. There is an ongoing AN/I report for the copyvios, but not a lot of input on it. It is a spin-off from another recent AN/I discussion. Anthony Bradbury may have missed these, and also the voluminous recent comments from a wide range of editors listed on the contributor's talk page until earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there will be an issue with you filing a CCI. You've got input from others (including myself and Anthony Bradbury (see below)) that confirms the copyvios. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks very much. I wasn't even aware of this process, although I have used the skills of the excellent User:Moonriddengirl from time to time. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CCI now filed. Learned something new. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

Elen, thank you for your input. I have looked at the contributions of the editor in question, and I fully appreciate thatb he is a problem, and I have told him so. I have, and had, no wish to upset anyone; I am aware that you have had some recent input here. I am also somewhat aware of the difficulties which can be encountered in tracking copyvios; we are both fairly experienced admins. My point was really just that there is a short way of dealing with them, or a roundabout one; and I am not certain that listing and discussing in a sandbox page is the ideal way to go about it. But I could be wrong. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is better to use the proper process. Sitush has raised above a concern of being seen as in dispute with the editor, even so it would be better if he or Anna file a CCI. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Too much of a good thing?

Hello, Elen. I want you and Ironholds both to be aware that multiple actions with overlapping effects have been taken to resolve the problem at List of George Franklin Barber works‎. Ironholds gave a one-week block to the user who was putting working draft content into the article and a 24-hour block to the user (a sysop) who was reverting those additions, and now you have full-protected the article for three days. While all of those measures have merit as means of stopping the ongoing disruption, it's not apparent that combining all of them at the same time is necessary (or even productive). As long as that one particular user is blocked, the full protection of the article does little good, since the "content" dispute (which first broke out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#George F. Barber) is unlikely to continue in his absence. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Orlady here; full-protection, a fairly serious position when we're talking about an encyclopedia anyone can edit, is only to be taken out as a last (reasonable) resort. Since both participants to the dispute are now blocked, is there any reason for the protection to be necessary? Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - offline for a few hours. I left a note on the talkpage when I put it on to say that any admin could turn it off as soon as the various editors had settled their differences. At a cursory glance, I thought Bms4880 (talk · contribs) was also adding weird things (apologies - obviously you weren't). No problems with Orlady turning it off if it was overkill. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news. This is a fork of a long-running WP:OWN issue regarding one of the editors. I'm not sure how he continues to do what he does but it has been raised umpteen times, on umpteen forums. The sysop editor has taken the position of defending the project against the perceived ownership. Both blocks seem to me to be correct, including the relative weighting thereof. However, the owning editor's block is unlikely to change his ways, if past blocks are anything to go by, but fully protecting the article for a few days is also not likely to make a difference to the root cause of the problem. Honestly, this entire farrago (in its bigger scale) needs some serious community action. It has been discussed to death but with little apparent effect. Do nothing and it will just run and run.
I should state for the record that I have in the past voiced my own arguments against the non-sysop's actions, and in the last week or so have reverted one of his edits on grounds that were effectively WP:OWN. As I understand it, even other people in the relevant project have pretty much given up hope of resolving this mess. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

leave me Alone!

leave me Alone ok? I have a medical issue. If you don't leave me alone, I will consider what you're doing a personal attack! Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to help you understand how to edit Wikipedia, because I know you have a medical issue that is causing problems. I keep telling you things because you don't seem to be able to work them out for yourself. If you carry on the way you are doing, other people will make a complaint about you at the admin noticeboard and you will be blocked, because some of what you are doing is sufficiently disruptive to warrant blocking. In particular, creating dud categories, and persistently adding dud categories to articles, is disruptive, and it directly affects the encyclopaedia. I cannot just let you go on being disruptive. If you ask me to "leave you alone", I will ask another admin to take over, but they will just say the same thing, and may be much less sympathetic.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User at AN/I

Hi. You commented in the last thread at AN/I that concerned user Terra Novus, who signs himself as "Novus Orator". Partly at my initiative, a new thread has been opened there that I consider as simply a continuation of the previous one. Because I consider it so, I've thought it proper to contact each administrator who took part in that last discussion, to disclose the fact. I believe this is an allowed notification for that reason. If you'd like to reply to me concerning this message you can do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail =)

Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Clarification requested

Could you please clarify who you meant by "impatient admins who won't wait for a community discussion to finish" ? I don't see who that could refer to. Cenarium (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a general armwaving kind of statement at this point - Scott Macdonald seemed to want everyone else to stop while there was a discussion, but equally it appears he was still doing stuff while the discussion was going on. If it goes to a case, then I'd want to sort out to my own satisfaction what exactly happened.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, it would indeed have been better for all parties to slow down at this point. Thanks for your clarification. Cenarium (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Can you help?

See here and then see here. I think you will see the problem. My inclination is to take this to ANI as a competence issue, but I'll let you have a run at it first if you think you can get anywhere. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neptunekh means well, but it is a little like being 'helped' by your toddler to make cupcakes :( I've made an attempt to explain what the problem is on her talkpage. If you don't think that's enough, you must do as you see fit (and I think you'll probably get support from a number of other editors). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 things I need to discuss

1. Should Alexandra Powers go under the category Category:American_atheists because it says in her personal life: "Powers does not adhere to any religion"? 2. Why was the Category:Wikipedians_of_British_descent deleted? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. As far as I can tell, because the category is used for people who make formal statements about why there definitively is no god. People who tried chanting, wearing red bracelets, reading tarot etc but it didn't do it for them, don't go in that category. Don't try creating Category:People for whom God didn't cut it though.
2. [9] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

You have been discussed (by me) in an WP:ANI discussion, regarding Neptunekh2. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Neptunekh2 - long term competence issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe I mentioned you too, regards. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Help me

I will accept your help. But if you want me to leave Wikipedia, I'll leave. Neptunekh2 (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Elen doesn't want you to leave, just to find a mentor. I'd be more than happy to work with you, as I think you have a lot to offer and I think our personalities would mesh pretty well (I too have a penchant for arcane topics). It'd be helpful if you could just leave a short note in the section at ANI so people will know you're on board. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just find someone you like to talk to, and take their advice. I guess I might come over a bit too much like your mother or similar :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Tamil Kshatriya

... and off we go. Pretty much straight in there and arguing against policy. WP:SYNTHESIS, on this occasion, in two different sections. I will stay calm but I'm not going to be able to convince him on my own.

Knowledge of the subject matter is irrelevant to any comment about policy & guidelines, so if you have the time and inclination then your thoughts (for or against, no matter) would be appreciated. I'm really sorry that you have got dragged into this but we need an admin or two here otherwise it is likely to get out of hand again. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The (short) sections are Talk:Tamil_Kshatriya#Additional_sources_from_Manorathan and Talk:Tamil_Kshatriya#a_crude_expalantion_of_the_problem. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

=Dale_Campbell

An article about a craver named Dale_Campbell needs some work. Can you clean the article up? Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, no. You're an intelligent girl (I can say this, I'm definitely old enough to be your mother), you can learn a bit more about editing articles. Ask your mentor how YOU can clean the article up.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Damian

Elen, could you please point me to the discussion regarding the so-called "courtesy blanking" of pages relating to Peter Damian? I find it rather surprising that we are wiping out pertinent notices with regard to a banned, known problem user. Thank you in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 08:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion with the Arbitration committee offwiki and also at User talk:Coren (where yes I know he is editing through an IP). The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Wikipedia - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim. There is I feel in any case not really a lot of point in endlessly tagging IPs (which change) and socks with a handful of edits. I have certainly seen in other cases that after a certain point it just draws more attention to the socking and its better to ignore it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads&oldid=434083817"