User talk:Elonka

Search engine optimization article

Elonka, for what it's worth, I watch the SEO article pretty closely and I don't think either Durova or Jehochman have abused it or tried to edit it to their advantage. As for the lawsuit, Jehochman, as well as other SEOs, are suing to stop the U.S. Trademark Office's egregiously absurd grant of a trademark on the letters "SEO" to one of their competitors (who has been indefinitely blocked here.)

I'm not in the SEO business myself; mostly I watch that article because it's a wonderful honeypot for drawing out spammers.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS, I thought your message for Jim62sch was very tactful. I'm sorry he took it wrong.

Thanks, I'm glad that uninvolved folks are keeping an eye on it. And I'm not disagreeing with you about the trademark dispute. Where I have trouble though, is the idea that a Wikipedia editor, an administrator even, edited a Wikipedia article, and then cited the bits of the article that he'd edited, when he was involved in a legal battle, as though the article represented "common knowledge". And further, that while the suit was active, he continued to edit that article, and didn't see anything wrong with it. I think that shows appalling judgment. It's also frustrating to me, because if the situation were reversed (that I had edited an article about the game industry, then cited the bits of the WP article in court documents, and then I continued to edit industry articles on Wikipedia, even while I was involved in a lawsuit which was relying on those articles), well, not that I would ever do such a thing, but if by some chance I did, I think all hell would rain down on my talkpage. So there seems to be a bit of a double standard going on. I still feel strongly that it's a simple matter: If an editor is involved in any kind of a legal action which is using Wikipedia articles as source documents, said editor should not be editing those articles, as that's a pretty clear COI. --Elonka 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. And, yes, all hell would rain down on you, I'm afraid; fair or not, some of us are "Velcro" while there are others that seem to be "Teflon".

I guess I saw that particular litigation as so absurd that in my mind, it "didn't count". Kind of like a flat earth lawsuit.

Bottom line -- you're right and we shouldn't have a double standard, even if in some eyes such as mine, there's not a "real" problem. Appearances matter for admins, since we set an example for others. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of this endless conflict. I have asked Newyorkbrad to mediate.[1] Will you accept his opinion as impartial? Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope!

Sorry, just my ignorance. --Enzuru 06:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, the guy who called me an ismaili vandal in the history constantly follows me (he always gets new IPs) and reverts many edits I make, so, I automatically revert them back. --Enzuru 06:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that guy who follows Enzuru around also follows me. He also calls me ismaili vandal or ismaili vandal's gf, depending if he notices who he's vandalising. His most recent reverts are so automated that he actually reverted something helpfully unintentionally. He's had 5 IPs blocked for log-in accounts only in the last 2 days alone... what a pain he is. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 06:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Is there a list of the IPs anywhere? Has anyone filed a Suspected SockPuppet or Request for CheckUser report? --Elonka 06:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I filed a partial one based on the most recent ones. If you can search edit summaries for "ismaili vandal", you'll get a motherload. Lessee, the one I filed is... [[2]]. But I didn't bother to gather them all. Can you search by edit names? I need to go to bed, but it's basically edits to Shia Islam, Template:Shi'a Islam, Template:Fatimah, Template:Ismaili, and a few others. Template:Twelver Shi'a as well. Okay, so a whole range of Shi'a topics, but those are the most prolific. Some of the 12 Imams were edit-spams, too, as I recall. *sigh* Yeah, so is there any way to summon up "Ismaili vandal"? He used a lot of other rude names (faggot dyke tranny, for one) but those are most reliable. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 06:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the report. As you find other IPs/accounts, they can be added to that page. For now, go ahead and get some sleep.  :) --Elonka 07:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Halp User:84.255.151.196... grr. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Now he's using User:129.250.211.12, an old reliable one for him.

Whoops now on User:129.250.211.10, another old one. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV (2)

It seems that there is POV pushing in opposite directions going on at this article. You responded to the actions of one side in response to WP:AN#Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources, while I (with the typical bias of a German) was more intrigued by the less obvious actions of the other side. Are you watching the article? It would be nice to know there is an experienced admin around. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV and Michele Renouf? Yes, watching 'em both, though more eyes are always helpful. There appears to be some disagreement about the BLP issues at the Renouf article. I'm not familiar with the sources, but am trying to come up to speed. --Elonka 01:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need your input at WP:ANI#User Causteau and The Jerusalem Post.

It seems that User:Causteau thinks I am part of a conspiracy (see User talk:Sina111#Press TV for the details). User:RCS seems to have similarly misguided ideas (although not to the same degree) about Causteau. I think Causteau could do with an explanation, from a trusted admin, of how WP:AGF can be used as an effective tool against real and imagined conspiracies. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you were not aware...

Since you stopped posting to my talk, but things have developed further, I figured I ought to drop you a note that there have been further discussions on AN/I. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka

Thanks for the post on my talk page. Things have moved on beyond that now. See Incidents page under Coal Mining. I think I'm about done. See also my user page.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that helps. I like especially what you did on the Environmental Effects page. But doesn't leave much on the Coal Mining page. Slim pickins there.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to remove material concerning Mathsci's attempts to out me. I'm concerned about the archived Incident report initially filed about the Law article concerning Yannis, in which Mathsci made a couple references correllating my user page description with the author of a book he referred to concerning the Coal Mining article. He made similar references in a message posted to my talk page, which I deleted, but I imagine there is an archive of that also. In addition he attempted to get me to open email communication with him, I think to get me to identify myself. Sigh.

There is so much more I could add, over time, but this is so discouraging. I think I will wait a few days and then close this account. Maybe I'll be back later, but I doubt it. Too much grief. It's like the old saw "no good deed goes unpunished." Life is short, and I don't need the aggravation of cowboy anarchy. Nobody does...Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This just never stops. Have you seen the thread Mathsci on talk page of FT2? Bizarre.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I have not and will not enter my personal email address on my preferences if that is what is required for me to receive email from someone. I can't do that without revealing my identity, and because there are administrators involved in this controversy who may be able to access my preferences page, I don't think that is wise.

Understand nothing I have experienced so far with Yannis or Mathsci or Slrubenstein or KT2 or Jehochman has inspired much confidence in Wikipedia. They all seem more concerned about themselves than about the Wiki harrassment policy. Only Charles Matthews and you seem to take it at all seriously.

I already have multiple email accounts and see no reason to obtain another just for this silliness. If Mathsci wishes to contact me, s/he can do so on my talk page as you have done. If that is not acceptable, then I guess Mathsci doesn't really wish to contact me on any terms but his/her own.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, please look at my talk page and tell me what the address under Message means. Unfamiliar and don't know how to access. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Mellars

Hiya, Elonka. Thanks for joining me in editing Paul Mellars. I managed to find his date of birth on the archives of the British Academy. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ah, you're welcome, but I won't be sticking around. That was just some drive-by categorizing, as I do to many other articles that I run across via Special:Random. Have fun with it though. --Elonka 00:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

Hey. I have (FINALLY) closed the RfC, and posted my conclusion inside it. Hopefully it's satisfactory, it was really hard to close this. Wizardman 04:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, Elonka. Not to keep lengthening the everlasting thread on Lar's page, I feel I should reply here that you're quite right: Rm994 didn't post to ANI. It was most likely at your page that I saw the user's call for help against an aggressive editor who kept blanking their page. Not that I was consciously watching your page, but I had lazily let it remain on my watchlist after I'd posted there before. ("Monitor" your page, as you call it, is not something I've ever done. Seriously, what for?) I'm sorry I misspoke about it. I can't remember, or even imagine, why I went look up that particular post on your page when it appeared on my watchlist—it's downright odd, to my sense, since it certainly didn't have a striking edit summary (it had none) or anything, and to the best of my knowledge I'd never heard of Rm994. Anyway, I was obviously mixed up when I wrote about it on Lar's page, and I apologize for my error. When something that long ago was in question, I should have checked before saying anything at all, however clearly I thought I remembered it, and I appreciate your setting me right. That said, I still stand by my other remarks on Lar's page, I'm afraid. As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't the one who "jumped into the middle of a discussion", you were (which was fine). You offered rather superior and as I thought them (and, I'm afraid, still think them) priggish references to well-known policies to Risker and myself, who are pretty experienced admins (which was less fine, in my opinion). Anyway, I'm very sorry I misremembered about where I saw Rm994's sad plaint. You'll be pleased to hear that I've finally remembered to "unwatch" your page. I do try to keep my watchlist trimmed down to pages I'm actually interested in, as it's much more effective that way. But it's a bit of an eternal struggle between chaos and laziness. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Returning Vandal

Hi, Ok, I will post elsewhere from now. But the new incarnation of the same vandal is User talk:Maryland's isn't Disneyland and he is still vandalizing several user pages. Please look at his edit history. I have started writing a paper about him: User:History2007/Content protection. Everytime he vandalizes, I write more on that article.... Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's not vandalizing anymore. He was blocked on October 19, indefinitely.[3] You won't be seeing that account again. If you do see him pop up on any different accounts, please let me or another administrator know, as quickly as possible. WP:ANI is a good place to post to get rapid attention. --Elonka 20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - yes he is blocked. I was looking on his talk page, not user page. But he will be back. The poor fellow has some sort of obsessive psych problem that needs professional help. I think he was also EurovisionMan and was vandalizing other topics and was blocked. Also vandalizes Lithuanian Wikipedia, and has a chess obsession too I hear. Anyway, Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Will keep an eye out. BTW, as a word of advice, please be careful about how you refer to editors. Even when dealing with vandals, it's not a good idea to make pronouncements about their presumed mental state. It's fine to point out the actions of an account, but for best results, try to avoid expressing opinions about the person behind the keyboard. WP:NPA and WP:ATP are also worth reading. --Elonka 21:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the academic papers link you provided was interesting - I had no idea it was there. I will read some of those and then work more on the issue of consistency between Rivers in Europe vs Rivers in Germany type feature that I was thinking about. That is a feature I would really like to see in Wikipedia as well, and would make image searches much more flexible as well. So some good came out of that page block after all! Cheers History2007 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Vanish

Hiya, Elonka.

Please could you make my account vanish. I no longer wish to contribute to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first read WP:VANISH. Then any of your userpages which you wish deleted, tag with {{db-user}}. Your account name can also be changed, to something different like "Vanish1234" if you want. You'd file a request for that at WP:RENAME. --Elonka 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, DIY? Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

o noes

this comment [4] is in no way a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. please read over them policies to better familiarize yourself wit' 'em. by the way, "trolling" really isn't the word for that either, as at that point I was actually taking the effort to try and be civil with people who were obviously just looking to get me banned for disagreeing with them from the start. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV again

Hi Elonka. The Press TV situation I told you about earlier has since gotten out of hand. Two of its prime "participants" (though I'm not sure if that's the word) have reported me personally and not my edits over at AN/I. What's most amusing is that one of them has also brought up the conflicts from months ago that I was involved in and which you moderated over at the Al-Azhar University page and with Andrew at E1b1b as an attempt to gain some sort of leverage. I've laid out the situation in its entirety here, with some important links (such as this discussion I had with another administrator earlier) that I think you should read first. Please drop by and let folks know what really happened from someone who is actually in a position to have all the facts. Best, Causteau (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance

I just got another personal attack via IP here; I'm not sure if I am supposed to report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or if there's a more specific place? I suppose it's classified as vandalism, right? Thx. — TAnthony^Talk 01:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. And I'm contacting folks off-wiki to see if there's further action that can be taken. Enough is enough. --Elonka 01:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you'd like to followup, it's looking like the (exposed) IPs are coming from Florida, so you could contact the ISPs and file a complaint. Many ISPs, if you can show them that someone is using their system to make these kinds of attacks, will yank the account access. To see the ISP, go to the anons' talkpages, and click on the "WHOIS" link at the bottom. Then you can go to those ISP pages, and look for a "report abuse" or "contact us" link. These might be places to start:[5][6] Give them diffs to the worst of the attacks. If this guy is a student at the University of Florida, it might even get him kicked out of the school. --Elonka 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, for the IP block, advice and (I assume) the CheckUser report ... I've submitted diffs to the ISP. The U of S Florida IPs were used for the suspected sockpuppet reverts and such, not really report-worthy. — TAnthony^Talk 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If they want further information, the CheckUsers can probably provide additional IP/computer information to law enforcement, though it would probably need to go through the Wikimedia legal counsel, Mike Godwin. Keep me posted if you have any other questions! --Elonka 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagz' talk page

You have my word that I will not be posting to it directly, but I would like to reserve the right to bring to the attention of admins postings that violate Wiki policies, although as I said, I won't edit directly on that page anymore. Good enough?--Ramdrake (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, yes.  :) Thanks, Elonka 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I was about a second away from just protecting Jagz' talk page and being done with it, when I first saw his comments there - he's wasted more than enough editorial time and energy. He's indefinitely blocked and got caught using a sock to evade his block and carry on his old grudges, after first denying it all. His unblock request has apparently been declined by ArbCom. He doesn't own his userpage - being allowed to edit there is a courtesy should he wish to give some indication he wants to edit constructively. Using his talkpage to attack another editor is an abuse. I haven't protected it because you've asked him to stand down and I'll wait to see if he does, but any further abuse of his talkpage and I think we've given him 10x more than enough rope. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that he's written an FA in the past, I'd probably agree with you. And I know that you and I have very different perceptions of the situation, but I still have a few dregs left in my Barrel o' Good Faith, that he's a good editor who just got tipped over the edge by attacks from all sides. As I've scanned through the history at Talk:Race and intelligence, over and over again I see what appear to be good faith comments by Jagz, which were responded to over and over by people calling him a troll. I lost track of the number of times that I saw Slrubenstein say DNFTT in response to anything that Jagz posted. Frankly, if I were trying to participate in discussions at a controversial article, and I repeatedly had people referring to me as a troll, I'd probably get testy too. For example, try to read this thread with a different perspective.[7] Don't start with, "Oh, there's Jagz again", try and mentally remove his name and insert someone else's that you respect (SandyGeorgia?). What I see is someone who kept trying to make good edits, then kept being attacked as a troll, and then when he responded even once with incivility, the attacks just increased. And then when he got indef blocked for "trolling", that pushed him further over the edge, and he finally started acting in the way that everyone was expecting him to act (which he saw as making a point, and they saw as just proving their own point). So I'd really like to see if we could just get everyone to go back to their corners and stop poking each other with pitchforks, and we might be able to salvage some good editors out of this? --Elonka 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't say that he "wrote a featured article". He was one of a number of contributors to an FA back in 2005, for which he deserves credit, and if he showed the slightest indication of doing anything similarly constructive now or in the future, I'd be willing to cut him more slack.

I don't see a victimized "good editor" who was simply provoked by "attacks from all sides", but I think we've agreed to disagree there so I won't belabor it. I will say that I see an editor determinedly promoting an agenda in violation of WP:NPOV etc, while generally remaining superficially civil. The success of this approach suggests to me an unfortunate primacy of civility over the content policies which guide the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. Good content work should not excuse incivility, but it's equally or even more problematic to allow civility to excuse poor or biased content.

At the moment, Jagz is banned (meaning he shouldn't really be contributing even on his own talk page), and he was using the slack he was given there to, as you said, poke people with a pitchfork. He's well aware of the avenues for appealing his ban, and I believe he's actively explored them. He can continue to do so, but he doesn't need access to his talk page to do that. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, was there a banning discussion that I missed? Could you please provide a link? --Elonka 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going by the tags on his userpage, which was perhaps a mistake. Generally, someone who's been indefinitely blocked, been caught socking, had 3 unblock requests declined, and had an ArbCom appeal declined is more or less "banned" ("users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community", from WP:BAN). On the other hand, whether banned or simply indefinitely blocked, the substance of my view is essentially unchanged. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's better to just call it an indef block for now, rather than a ban. To be honest, my gut feeling is that he's already running another account to evade the block, which is probably why his answers are so evasive, and also is probably why he seems in no particular hurry to get the Jagz account unblocked. Then again, if he is running another account, it's working on other articles, so we'd get the encyclopedia work out of him one way or the other, whether Jagz is blocked or unblocked. Not that I'd support him evading the block in any way... If another sock were discovered, I'd support an immediate indef block. Also, as a sort of side note about the inconsistencies of wiki culture, I find it fascinating that Jagz, with a long history of contributions, is indef blocked at this point, and there's a call to have his talkpage protected so he just goes away entirely. Whereas Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs), which appears to be very much a tendentious single purpose account, is continuing to waste the time of multiple administrators. Ah well, it's the wiki-way, our editors and admins spend time where they want to, even if it's not the most efficient use of their particular efforts! --Elonka 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A most intriguing and cogent comment (about wasting time), I must say. Oddly, sometimes when one does root cause analysis though, one finds that the main timewasting in problematic editor situations is not directly chargeable to the editor themselves, but to the actions of others. Just food for thought. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka,I may be totally wrong, but along those lines, I've just noticed a user account by the name of User:Jagzilla. This could be absolutely no more than mere coincidence -- seems to be a sleeper account -- but the similitude in names was awkward... FYI Never mind it seems to have disappeared since yesterday; either that or somebody put something funny in my drinking water. ;)--Ramdrake (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a real account, but I don't think it's related... It just popped up to create a page in 2007, which page was deleted in 2008, and I haven't seen any other activity. If you do find any other suspicious accounts though, do bring them up! I have very little patience for block evasion. --Elonka 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that KS should be asked to move on, as this is at least theoretically an encyclopedia rather than a battleground. I was actually ready to simply take care of it, in response to a post I saw at WP:BLP/N, when I noticed that multiple other admins were already involved. I left a note for Lar on his talk page about it. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Elonka's use of the phrase "his answers are so evasive" is spot-on. This is one of the main points that has been made about Jagz's contributions to talk pages. Different words were used to describe "evasiveness". Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected User Talk:Jagz. He's consistently abused his talk page - whether he's banned or merely an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer, his talk page is not a blog where he can continue to pursue old grudges (e.g. [8]). If he wishes to be unblocked, he can carry on correspondence with you, with unblock-en-l, or with ArbCom via email. All of his activity since his block, though, has been completely unproductive and antagonistic. Even when he created a block-evading sock, he didn't use it to improve the encyclopedia, but to jump back in to his old grudges, battles, and obsessions. I'm happy to submit this action to WP:AN/I for review if you feel it is in error. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your perception, and would ask you to unprotect the page. But please, let's not make this another ANI dramafest. Can we figure out a compromise here? --Elonka 16:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's centralize this - since you've commented in more detail on my talk page, we can discuss it there. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If Elonka wants to continue having a conversation with an indef-blocked editor then Elonka could continue the conversation by email. Is this about a conversation that Elonka wants to continue or is this much bigger? It seems Elonka may want to unblock Jayz. Maybe, that is what this is really about. QuackGuru 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with unprotecting the talk page because of comments like this. QuackGuru 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Private

I do not wish the link to be clickable for obvious reasons. Kindly respect my wishes. You may give another explanation below which does not contain the link directly. Please try to act a little more thoughtfully in future. Mathsci (talk)

Mathsci, frankly this is getting a bit silly. You posted the link, the editor didn't know what to do with it and Elonka assisted him only after he asked her to do so. If you do not want the link to be public, don't post it - whether or not its clickable makes little to no difference. Shell ^babelfish 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, your being unhelpful, please stop. You have made false statements in the past in a failed attempt trying to support Elonka's position. QuackGuru 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you have any problems with my past or current comments regarding yourself or your behavior, I would be happy to discuss the situation with you or engage in dispute resolution. Please do not insert these issues into other topics. Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shell's comment above (of 20:49, 21 October 2008). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys has not replied yet, as far as I am aware, so Shell's message baffles me. Meanwhile my letter has been reposted slightly differently on mathsci.free.fr. Elonka has been told where the new location is (a not very subtle change with mervyn-emrys changed to Mervyn-Emrys) and has my blessing to pass the message on if as it seems she recorded it. If this does not work I will post detailed instructions about the new location of the message in a non-clickable form on Mervyn's talk page. Perhaps people could be more patient. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The new message is posted there now. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look up under "Hi Elonka", Mervyn Emrys's most recent request of Elonka was that she assist him in understanding your message. Sometimes its not patience, but a little good faith and investigation that helps understand a situation ;) Shell ^babelfish 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen that - many apologies. The main thing is that my message gets read. I meant everything I wrote and sincerely hope that this will clear the air and help Mervyn feel at ease on wikipedia. Again sorry about the crossed wires. I will not post again during oyster night in my cyber-bistro :) Best wishes, Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you tease with the oysters - I may just have to go acquire some seafood. I do hope the post helps clear the air; best of luck. Shell ^babelfish 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Merci et bon appétit ! Mathsci (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Abu Rayhan Biruni

The page Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī violates the Wikipedia naming convention (use of macrons...) but I can't move it to Abu Rayhan Biruni because I am not an administrator. I've dropped a {{Db-move}} on the latter, but I don't know how long it'll take to get someone's attention so I figured I'd drop you a note. <3 ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 03:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just start a thread at the talkpage, proposing the move. If no one disagrees after a few days, I can get it moved for you. Otherwise, you may wish to handle it via WP:RM. --Elonka 04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Return of Vandal & Rollback

Hi, User:Pionier came back, this time with 2 Ids: User:Pioneer sets a fire and User:Pioneer tells the truth. See examples of his work today on Mother of God. Also vandalized my user page again. Can you please grant me Rollback rights so I can just roll him back. That may be one way to slow him down. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Jayron got it. If you have any other trouble though, please don't hesitate to let us know! --Elonka 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I looked at Rollback and it seems to need a script for a massive rollback of a vandal's edits. What scripting language and/or system is that written in. I guess I need to read more, but is there a way to do 10 rollbacks at once? Is there an easy linkto that explanation page? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it's usually not that complicated, you just click the rollback link, and it removes all of the edits that a vandal has made on an article, back to the previous person's edit. See WP:ROLLBACK. --Elonka 04:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if it can be done on multiple articles, and within a given date range for an IP, etc. Cheers History2007 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look into some of the vandal-fighting tools. See the Tools section at WP:CUV. I've heard good things about Huggle though haven't used it myself. --Elonka 07:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will read those. History2007 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Utto

Hello Elonka! I have a question about a small detail in Utto (disambiguation). Could you be so kind to tell me, why the phrase Utto is a German given name dropped out in your edit from 21 October? Do you think it can be considered self-explanatory from the following examples, or was there another reason? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was simply doing a rapid cleanup, as I go through Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. The "may refer to" is the typical opening for disambiguation pages, but looking at what's there, it's probably fine to add the "German given name" part back in. Generally we wouldn't put that in the introductory line unless the first line were a link to a name page. But since it's an unlinked word, we don't. For more details, see WP:MOSDAB, which is our Manual of Style for those pages. It's just a guideline though, so editors are free to choose what they think works best for a particular situation, even if it doesn't conform exactly. :) If you think the page would be better with that wording, feel free to tweak.  :) --Elonka 16:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:-) I put the given name back in, somehow I feel more comfortable with it (and WP:MOSDAB led me to Elvis (disambiguation) - Utto seems a bit similar on a much smaller scale). Daranios (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Banned

Yes, a long-term problem user, abusive sockpuppeteer who has had three independent block reviews. Unless ArbCom do step in and lift the ban I don't think any admin would consider unblocking. Therefore, he's been community banned. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin, and I would consider unblocking. Based on my own review, Jagz has effectively been tarred and feathered, but no one has yet provided a strong basis for why. I just see a lot of name-calling, without diffs. --Elonka 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a difference. It was disgusting to read and inappropriate. QuackGuru 19:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You would be wise to wait until ArbCom has considered his unblock request. If it is granted, no action from you is necessary, and if it is denied, then you would be placing your own judgment over that of the blocking admin, the three admins who reviewed the unblock request, and ArbCom. I'd recommend you consider your actions very carefully indeed under those circumstances. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that I would just unblock unilaterally. I meant that I am willing to unblock, if other conditions are met. I have no intention of wheel warring. But my understanding of the banning policy, is that, barring a full community banning discussion, as long as there exists an admin who would be willing to consider an unblock, that an indef block is not a ban. I know that there's a lot of confusion though over "what is a ban" and "what is a block". What I've honestly been seeing though with the Jagz situation, is one where a kind of lynch mob mentality set in. There was a content dispute at some articles, including Race and intelligence, which resulted in a certain group of editors repeatedly calling Jagz a troll because they disagreed with the kind of information that he wished to add. Jagz, an editor on Wikipedia since 2005 who had done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in the past, including some on an article that reached FA, eventually reacted with anger, including some unfortunate incivility. When he did this, it just reinforced all the other voices calling him a troll, and he was indef blocked. He then responded with even worse incivility towards the admin that blocked him. However, aside from the rather constant name-calling by his opponents, no one has yet produced diffs that he was violating Wikipedia policies in any way prior to this dispute. If anyone can provide such diffs, I would be happy to review them. But until then, it is my opinion that we may have blocked a good editor who just lost his temper. Which is why I would still be willing to consider an unblock. --Elonka 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it's probably a good idea to heed what Tim wrote in its entirety. Jagz was community-banned, after much thought and for excellent reasons: primarily that Wikipedia does not tolerate racism, anti-Semitism, etc. Incivility, of which I am sometimes guilty, is one thing, but racism and anti-Semitism and the rest of the -isms that go with those two, is something else entirely. Additionally, serving NPA warnings to those who know full well Jagz' MO and POV is not necessarily helpful and should only be done when it's clearly a vio of NPA, not just anger that a banned editor is still posting in a disruptive and disgusting manner. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch, Jagz was not community-banned. He was indef blocked, there's a difference. See WP:BAN. As for the other comments, if you're going to make those kinds of accusations towards another editor, you'd better provide diffs, thanks. --Elonka 21:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A community ban is an indefinite block in which no admin is willing to unblock the user. You concurred with the indefinite block at the time [9] and no admin opposed it. At that point, he was effectively community banned. This user had six mainspace edits (none significant) in his last month here, so I'm not sure what benefit there would be from removing his ban. --B (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, do you have a job where others do your research for you or where you do your own? And, are you calling Tim's judgment into question? Also, "you'd better provide diffs" implies a threat of some sort (given the tacit "or else"); perhaps "please provide diffs" would be better. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Once we know what ArbCom decided, Jim, we'll be in a better position to discuss this. Incidentally, I'm quite happy for my judgment to be questioned, since like everybody I make mistakes all the time, but we need all the facts before we can decide what is the best thing to do. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

True, and while I have to admit to questioning your judgment a couple of times, I ended up agreeing with you. Although I still think you're too calm.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

allow me to add (having been following this little debate out of idle curiosity), that diffs would be very helpful. I've noticed a tendency in wikipedia disputes to rely - sometimes almost exclusively - on character references/assassinations rather than on actual behavior. however, it seems to me that it really shouldn't matter whether Jagz has horns and sulfury smoke coming out of his nose, or whether you and Tim are made entirely out of Barnstars. the issue should still be decided by a careful examination of the questionable behavior in context. no offense to you or your word, but there's nothing quite like seeing for oneself, yah? --Ludwigs2 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagz was under community ban. Elonka lifted the ban, claiming she could mentor him. Rather than call that wheel-warring, I am willing to watch and give Elonka a shot. But she failed miserably - well, I should say Jagz failed. The community ban was restored. I have no idea why Elonka is so invested in revoking the community ban against a disruptive, racist editor. And i am all for giving fellow admin's some slack. But sooner or later disrupting community bans really does bcome wheel-warring and I would say trying to to revoke a community bn a second time, well, that is one step too far, surely. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While Elonka said she would consider unblocking, I'm sure she would not make that decision before gauging the opinions of other editors and waiting for ArbCom's response - she may be bold, but she's not completely indifferent to other people's opinions. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Elonka, I popped by because I'm a bit confused... I see you warned OrangeMarlin, apparently for this edit, calling it an "appalling personal attack", and threatening him with a block. I went and looked at it and although I'm a believer in WP:SPADE I agree that it might be a bit less than 100% saccharine sweet to point out that someone is a racist, even if (as is unclear to me so far) they actually are one. However I also happened to notice this diff to the same talk page where OM was speaking, in which Jagz used far stronger language. Yet I see you here, apparently arguing that you'd be willing to consider an unblock for Jagz. I'm completely confused by that. Can you let me know where you warned or counseled Jagz for that "appalling personal attack" on MastCell? Because I'm wondering if you're completely unbiased in this matter... those two things taken in context suggest a significant skewing in your viewpoint, at least apparently. Please help me out and explain what was going on here. I'll be quite interested to hear it, since you've been rather quick to find procedural fault with others. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Dear Elonka, I added a my opinion to the section on using names in Hungarian and Slovak articles. Trisw (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)