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
→‎A question: no fighting please
Line 720: Line 720:


::::::@Qwyrxian, your interpretation of block policy toward the real case for Tenmei is incorrect. The very unfair and injustice point for this case is here: when I was reported by John Smith's to Magog the Ogre, I was '''swiftly''' blocked by Magog the Ogre in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Senkaku_Islands less than 2 hours]. When I reported Magog that Tenmei was violating BRD strictly set by Magog on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Senkaku_Islands 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)], and repeated my report on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#BRD_cycle_breaking 03:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)], and on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#BRD_cycle_breaking 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)], and on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#BRD_cycle_breaking 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)], there was nothing happened until [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Senkaku_Islands 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)], which had more than '''31 hours''' past. During this period, Tenmei was very actively editing in the talk page of the page where he violated the BRD, and fought against my report in Magog the Ogre's talk page. Tenmei declared to temporary withdrew from editing relevant page on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Senkaku_Islands_dispute 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)], when it was about 11 hours after Magog the Ogre denied my report and a debate about this violation began. When I was blocked, I also ensured in my appeal that I would not change what Magog had reverted to, but my appeal was denied by admins including Magog. So, Qwyrxian, your interpretation is incorrect for this case when comparing the treatments what Tenmei got and what I got. --[[User:Lvhis|Lvhis]] ([[User talk:Lvhis|talk]]) 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::@Qwyrxian, your interpretation of block policy toward the real case for Tenmei is incorrect. The very unfair and injustice point for this case is here: when I was reported by John Smith's to Magog the Ogre, I was '''swiftly''' blocked by Magog the Ogre in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Senkaku_Islands less than 2 hours]. When I reported Magog that Tenmei was violating BRD strictly set by Magog on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Senkaku_Islands 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)], and repeated my report on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#BRD_cycle_breaking 03:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)], and on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#BRD_cycle_breaking 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)], and on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#BRD_cycle_breaking 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)], there was nothing happened until [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Senkaku_Islands 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)], which had more than '''31 hours''' past. During this period, Tenmei was very actively editing in the talk page of the page where he violated the BRD, and fought against my report in Magog the Ogre's talk page. Tenmei declared to temporary withdrew from editing relevant page on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Senkaku_Islands_dispute 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)], when it was about 11 hours after Magog the Ogre denied my report and a debate about this violation began. When I was blocked, I also ensured in my appeal that I would not change what Magog had reverted to, but my appeal was denied by admins including Magog. So, Qwyrxian, your interpretation is incorrect for this case when comparing the treatments what Tenmei got and what I got. --[[User:Lvhis|Lvhis]] ([[User talk:Lvhis|talk]]) 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

'''GENTLEMEN'''! You can't fight in here, this is the [[War Room]]. My opinion is as follows:-
:# Magog picked the wrong tool to try to control edit warring.
:# Magog made a mistake blocking Lvhis (reasons given above), and another mistake not blocking Tenmei
:# However, too much time has now passed to make it reasonable to block Tenmei, so he isn't going to be blocked for that instance
:# If you remain pissed off with Magog, [[Wikipedia:Request for comment/Magog the Ogre]] awaits


== Dual accounts ==
== Dual accounts ==

Revision as of 18:55, 8 August 2011

Untitled

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:

Checking watchlist, wow what are you doing Elen? And got here to find that User:Xeno had already caught it ;) CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]
I just re-deleted and protected his userpage. Just a courtesy note, Syrthiss (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak to what ArbCom agreed to, I don't agree with your statement about not tagging at least the registered socks. However, we'll see if PD can stay away. FYI, though, you might need to add a different rationale to the speedy for the IP pages as U2 doesn't appear to cover IPs who have edited. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 04:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was the wrong CSD code all round, but I figgered I'd stick with the same wrong one. There's two schools of thought on the socks, so I understand what you are saying. Hopefully it will not be an issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Hand washing...

If I were found to be commenting in the Ladies, I guess I deserve any and all approbation directed at me! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC) ("...that was no lady, that was an admin!!")[reply]

LOL! If I ever see you in the Ladies....I'll call security. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U: Cirt

Dear Elen, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, --JN466 13:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat

Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hi Elen, I've sent you an email. Sorry to bug you but I feel this issue could do with an Arb's eye being cast over it--Cailil talk 23:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping proposed decision

All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash have a chat 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Neptunekh2 back doing copyvios again

Just caught this one. edit, source. Along with the obvious competence issues, it's just getting too much to look after this person now. Nymf hideliho! 09:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolloques - dodgy categories [10] again! bad categorization again! spamming the helpdesks again! [11] and now copyvio again! I think it's probably time for the block again! :( --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it sucks. I think we and a whole lot of other people gave it a fair go though. Nymf hideliho! 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, had to go make dinner for my family yesterday and never got back to this. In fairness to The Blade of the Northern Lights, I've dropped him a note on his talkpage. I don't get the impression this mentoring actually worked - I'm seeing no sign that Neptune is actually talking to him (as opposed to ordering him to fix articles for her) - but I think he deserves the chance to respond. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have added a comment at Blade's tp, unfortunately Neptune seems to be ignoring whatever Blade has been telling her and insists on creating articles and categories that do not deserve to exist, then asking (ordering) Blade to "clean them up". I don't know how long the Wikipedia tether is but I think the end is in sight! CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped a note at her talkpage; I've told her that she's on thin ice now, so she needs to stop creating articles altogether and prove to me she can add sourced material to an article; my userspace draft will be her training ground. I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but if this doesn't work I don't think we have much of a choice. It's always a crapshoot with our kind; I was kinda hoping for a MisterWiki ending instead of Angie Y, but people have to help themselves too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Telling lies about Sydney Bluegum..

You have added to the lying that has gone during the tree shaping arbitration.

you stated that I was topic banned and I wasn't.
you completly confused the diff re the chainsaw comment and didn't bother to reply or correct it.
You admitted that you had not read all the evidence which was your role in the arbitration.

You have been told these points and have not done a thing about it. You have not looked into the behaviour of other editors. I would say that you have been slack to the max in your role and editors should take note of your sloppy role. If you could not do the job properly you should have stood aside and perhaps a more competent editor might have done the right thing and at least read the evidence. I am completely disappointed in you and others admins on the arbitration.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney, I have not anywhere said that you are already topic banned. What is proposed is that you should be topic banned. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

John_Mahoney

Can you find a reference saying that John_Mahoney is British-born? Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are already several in the article that say that he was born in England. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

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.

I'm sorry to have bothered you. The matter has now been expedited. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A possible ducky-sock

Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be back as Madforhockey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's only edited Anyang Halla related articles (As Sambo did) and some of his formatting looks like the same kind Sambo uses. So far he hasn't tried to spam up the articles (mostly because all these foreign players have moved on), but as you handled this, I thought you should be aware of it. You can see that here [12], and here [13]. Could probably CU it if it isn't too clear.--Crossmr (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye....whoever this user is, he's familiar with the interface. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't take too long, [14], block away, hammer the IP down for awhile too [15], this is a very static IP so don't have any qualms about blocking it for 6 months either.--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This IP 125.31.146.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also him.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DoneElen of the Roads (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you're super!--Crossmr (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And away we go:

Might be a range block in order here, or we may just go ahead and semi protect Samuel H. Kim and Ric Jackman (their new player) along with Anyang Halla and Brock Radunske. He only seems interested in promotion on the foreign non-korean player's articles. As the season approaches they'll be generating more press releases and articles and that only increases how much he wants to try and jam those in everywhere.--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now 203.90.37.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

finding sources

1. Could you find a reliable source for Pornstar Chanel_Preston's heritage or ancestry and list it in her article? 2. Could you also find a source saying that actor John_Cho has duel American and Korean nationality since he is Korean-born? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

back of beyond

Just noticed this and having no sense of humour whatsoever I am deeply offended. I think this remark should be escalated beyond all sense or reason. We need to cease editing Wikipedia in any sensible manner and proceed to sped our time accusing each other of harassment, stalking and other malfeasance. This should culminate in a duel, with our minds (the only weapon available) at dawn (25 July, sorry but we have 24 hour sunlight right now and that is the first dawn) on ANI. Hang on a minute! I just remembered I don't have a mind so the duel is out and I'm far to lazy to be doing all that other stuff. I'm going to go back to teaching my granddaughter British slang while her parents are not about. That'll teach them to get me for a baby sitter. By the way, Neptunekh2 has added some good articles such as Joseph Idlout, which should have been created a long time ago. Cheers from the back of beyond. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Let us challenge each other at WQA, ANI, ITV, VCR, RPM, MP3, 3G and GO. Unfortunately, Neptune also has some need of a babysitter, but she means well and does create interesting stubs. As one who hails from the centre of the known universe, Nunavut is definitely the back of beyond. Just tell your granddaughter not to get her knickers in a twist over it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I might have guessed. So that means you talk with a very funny accent, eat pakin, scuffler and dock pudding and think that Nottinghamshire stole Robin Hood. But the beer is way better there than here. Ah, Yorkshire isn't that bad. My parents have lived there for several years and we spent several weeks at Wansford, East Riding of Yorkshire and North Frodingham. We all agreed that staying in small places like that without transport would make you more isolated than living down here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

A cheeseburger for you!

Hulkster Cheeseburger with Melt Negativecharge (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your over-aggressiveness

Ever heard of this?: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive."

You apparently believe alot in strict policy enforcement, yet you violate WP behavior guide like above! I will complain about you as time permits. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do that pet :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the kind of comment that got David Cameron into trouble recently. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least I didn't invite Rebekah Brooks to my hen party LOL --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I don't appreciate the name-calling. I think it is very rude. You unnecessarily exacerbate. Who the H do you think you are? Because you are an Admin, do you think you can get by w/ *anything*? Tell me about it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
???Name calling??? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. You can see what you called me. Read what you wrote. It's condescending and baiting. And now you've repeated it on Polgar Talk. I find you immensely rude. (Can you please get lost? Thank you so much!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :)

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.

~ AdvertAdam talk 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso

You know (I believe) that I think your warning was correct; you know that I had no problems with what you posted on my talk page. In the interest of seeing if there is a way to salvage the relationship between Wikipedia and Ihardlythinkso, however, I think that for now it might be best if you didn't respond to xyr on my talk page. Maybe it will be possible to show the user both that we really meant well, and that xyr behavior will need to be a tad more moderate in order to work well within our collaborative editing environment. And, even better, maybe I can learn some other way of interacting that might have made this calmer from the beginning... Qwyrxian (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it if you can make it work. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) ETA - I think you're on a hiding to nothing, but I respect your desire to make the attempt. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if nothing else, I have just learned a wonderful new UK phrase. "A hiding to nothing"--I had to look that one up...maybe I'll try to introduce it into Japanese-English! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

User: Starcade

As you dealt with this issue I thought it best to inform you of edits to his talk page. Attitude is still bad in my opinion, still attempting to refute community consensus and policies WP:crystal. From the attitude it seams like he thinks everyone is incorrect but him. Any way I post below a link to his talk page below. I have also posted same link to admin notice board discussion from yesterday. I hope you can appreciate my reasons for informing you. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starcade#Then_the_ban_will_probably_have_to_be_made_permanent._Your_decision.2C_admins.

A user called Christanandjericho just tried to remove the above content from starcade's page but I reverted that because I thought you should see what starcade has wrote. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Commented at ANI and user's talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I've revoked his talkpage rights for the duration of his block. GedUK  21:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand

I understand. 174.7.183.170 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen of the Roads, given those restrictions, I'm not sure how we can best deal with this request on helpdesk? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration - Illicit Drug Interventions

Elen of the Roads, in answer to your question on the Arbitration page, I have provided links in the section describing steps taken to resolve the dispute where on three separate occasions the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was used to get third party comment. I make reference to the results of these third party inputs in the body of my statement (Statement 1). Minphie (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another SchoolcraftT unblocking attempt

Would you mind dropping by [[16]]? SchoolcraftT is trying to get yet another admin to unblock him. Bitmapped (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to run this by you

There was a real person called Dlasta that Xena:_Warrior_Princess character Velasca was based on. I have a source about the person right here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/ama/ama07.htm Can someone help me make an article on Dlasta please? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start the article in your sandbox by clicking on this link User:Neptunekh2/Dlasta. Then we can have a look at what you have got. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the article in my sandbox

I have started the article in my sandbox:[[17]] Can you tell me what you think? Neptunekh2 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added dalasta in List_of_women_warriors_in_folklore#Historical_Czech_Lands

Can you tell me what you think since I added dalasta in List_of_women_warriors_in_folklore#Historical_Czech_Lands? I did what you asked. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Neptunekh2

I got the impression you've adopted this user. I thought you should be informed of this diff and this related thread.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all content on Sacred texts is PD (see http://www.sacred-texts.com/cnote.htm) - this includes the Rothery source. So no, there's no copyright infringement, but I agree with every single other thing you said. I did not tell Neptune to copypasta the content of User:Neptunekh2/Dlasta into the list article - I thought she could put a line each about Dlasta, Libussa and Valasca. But we are making progress of an odd kind. There's a sort of dialogue now going on. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen. Thanks for getting back to me. You're right that I didn't catch that but it's still copied without attribution and so constitutes plagiarism. I should have been more careful and just did not check the date but the problem is that when there are constant problems as seen here, the tolerance level goes down.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It just happens that I use sacred text for research, so I know it's status. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to add to your woes here, but Neptune has created a new category in defiance of the ban you outlined. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a new article on Dlasta

I started a new temporary article on Dlasta: User_talk:Neptunekh2/Dlasta/Temp. I didn't copyright this time and the article is stub. Could someone expand it please? Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

That user RaúlLoveMiley moved Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus page for no reason and I do not understand why it was moved or why a persistent vandalist like this was allowed to move it. Is there anyway at all to get it moved back and that user permanently banned? JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 06:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily put the page back no problems. I don't think this guy is a vandal, I think he is a junior teen who is somewhat obsessed with Hannah Montana, and who thinks he is helping (eg adding the extra pictures) when in reality he is not. If you try talking on his talkpage and explaining, it may help. If he takes no notice, then I'll quite happily take further admin action. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How's what I wrote on his talk page look? JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 22:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I like that appproach. I do think he's trying to help - if you look at his last two edits he's right, it is Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus, not Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus, as it's two albums packaged together, not a series/episode construction like Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back . But he's likely to get into trouble for edit warring over it (as I suspect is the other guy), as his clue level is not high where Wikipedia rules are concerned.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ending-starts a good friend of mine I'll talk to him. He's pretty good at things but he makes mistakes too. I'll talk to him. And thank you I figured it's better then say cussing the guy out you know? JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 00:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User:Surturz/AdminWatch

Step 1 of the DRV process is to ask the admin nicely to restore the page. Could you please restore User:Surturz/AdminWatch? It does the admins no credit to so quickly delete a page like this. You guys can zap it in a second, but as an non-admin I have all these tedious processes to go through to defend the page. The ANI I raised is barely started and now I need to do a DRV. Could you please restore the page, or at least let me restore the "rationale" part, so that non-admins know what we are talking about? How can I build consensus for a check against admin power if the admins make it impossible for non-admins to know what is going on? --Surturz (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking nicely. However, I decline. The community has previously supported deletion of 'shit lists' of this kind. If you want to raise concerns about an admin, the correct approach is a request for comment on the admin. If others share your concerns, the Arbitration Committee will look at the case, and has the power to remove admin tools. If you want to change the policies or powers that admins have, start gathering consensus. Discuss it at WP:ADMIN or WP:Village pump#policy - see if others support your views. If you just don't like admins in general, then you need to get elected as God-king and get them done away with. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to gather consensus. A bit hard when you can't put together a list of reasons for change. For the purpose of the DRV discussion, I am going to restore the image, caption, and rationale sections, but remove the list of admins. This will allow non-admins to effectively involve themselves in the DRV. I hope this is okay with you. --Surturz (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would do far better to put together a list of reasons for change generically, and then link them to examples, rather than listing them by admin, which is what causes it to be deleted as a shitlist. For example 'admins are able to speedily delete articles without discussion', you could then link to these deletions as examples of what you see as a proble. That way, it doesn't look as if you are targeting individual admins. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just tempundeleted it and protected it for the purposes of the DRV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Surturz.2FAdminWatch. (That was me formally informing Elen of the DRV, as I am required to do). That curly brace template thing is pretty mysterious I think I screwed it up.
Why did you not previously advise me to either mark it as a rfc-in-progress, or to reorganise the article by admin action rather than admin name? I would have been happy to do either of these, and you could have done that strikethrough thing with the revisions you didn't like. A few talkpage comments is all it would have taken. Instead, here I am, several hours of lodging ANIs and DRVs later, and even more convinced that admin powers need curbing. --Surturz (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templates do for me as well :) I did tell you pretty much at the same time as deleting it, or at least as soon as I figured out what you were trying to achieve, but I'll be honest, I'm not sure if all admins would do that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of WP:CONS, could you please read my suggested compromise at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_3#My_preferred_outcome_.28and_arbitrary_section_break.29 --Surturz (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a Close

I need an uninvolved administrator to check this thread (which links to a couple of other discussions related to the subject as well) and to make a close at WP:AN. There is a clear consensus for a topic ban for MakeSense64 but the thread nearly vanished to the archives unattended, and I want to make sure it gets closed and enacted per consensus and not slip through the cracks. CycloneGU (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for enacting that ban. I think it will help the effort to develop and substantiate the content of those pages significantly. One question - the proposal was for MakeSense64 to be banned from astrology and astronomy pages (and their discussion pages) because he has caused a lot of his disruption in arguments relating to star and constellation pages - arguing that even clarification of astronomical principles on subjects such as the zodiac pushes pseudoscience on WP (or other equally disruptive arguments). I went to the NPOV noticeboard for advice on one issue, and they were totally supportative, but could not stop him from continuing to make disruptive arguments and edits. So to clarify, does the phrase "topic banned from the subject of Astrology, widely construed, and including all project spaces for a period of six months" include what he refers to as 'astronomy pages' too?. I would also like to know if it's possible to have this editor's account history checked for sock-puppetry, since the suggestion has been made by more than one editor that its unlikely this user-account is as new as its history suggests it to be. Could you advise me a little on how that request can be handled? Thank you again. Zac Δ talk 13:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Astrology widely construed should cover it - if he's making astronomy related edits (say information about binary star systems) he's fine, but his edits at eg Algol were on astrology, not astronomy. If you think he's socking, start a Sockpuppet investigation - there are several blocked/banned users he could be, but you'll need to see if he edits like any of them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one actually, but I'll leave that for today and come back to it when I'm less pressed for time. Thanks for that clarification. The way he insists that astrology-related content is actually astronomy-related content, and astronomy-related content is actually astrology-related content, I'm a little worried that there might be future problems on those pages. But hopefully not - I'll keep a record of this discussion, just in case. Regards and thanks again, 13:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm equally worried, but unless something appears at AN/I (or unless Zac informs me about a potential sock to look at to analyze), my involvement with this case is now at an end. It was clear to me from what I saw that MakeSense64 was editing disruptively even where I entered the dispute a month and a half in at AN/I, so I feel this was a good case here. Thank you for doing the close Elen, I'll mark the new AN/I thread resolved. CycloneGU (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

I'm starting to go through the categories Neptunekh2 created, and I'm wondering if we can stretch G5 a bit. I know she was never formally banned from creating categories, but both of us told her explicitly not to. It seems a waste of time to send some of them to CfD; I'll compile a list of what's worth saving and what isn't, and I'm thinking we can probably be done with it a bit more quickly if someone just zaps them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any that she made after the warning can go unless they are populated, same with any that duplicate a cat that was previously CfD'd, and anything unpopulated. Let me know what you find out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for fun, I went through all of her category creations and listed them here. A sanity check would be good before I start tagging/CfDing them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi there, I am cracking up, oh dear, she has been busy hasn't she, where is Category:Central African mice of Jamaican descent. To be honest, if she has created a category to house one person, as is often the case, and the intersection is ridiculous or the chances of it ever being populated are very low, I would empty the category and then CSD it. This is what I have done in the past, saves time and no one is complaining. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've started. If no-one else is using it and it has only one entry I'll just delete them. Two of the films about categories need renames (Film about cows should be films about cows) but the categories are OK I think. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mooo! yes film about bears would, by definiton, only ever have one film in it ;-) Have to pop out to the shops but will do some cat emptying later for the sake of Blade's sanity. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, this isn't nearly as annoying as the spectrumite I'm usually chasing after in the new user log; at least I'm learning a little bit in the process. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never tried moving categories - do you have to delete and re-create them?
C2 is for renaming categories; I'll tag the two that need to be renamed now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good on Blade, I just checked and there is no "move" button on the cats page, we are all the wiser for that, cheers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Next up is figuring out how many of these can go to WP:DAFT... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, in this marathon task of category vetting, I came across the wierd and wonderful: Colin Powell catted as "Jamaican of Scottish descent", which i promptly removed as he is an "American of Jamaican desent with Scottish ancestry" (damn should have created the cat!) Btw, this is not Neptune's work :)
But I did come across this, William_Davidson_(conspirator), from which I removed all the wierd and dodgy categories (none attested to in bio). Problem is it appears to be a major copyvio of this website, [18], you seem to know your way round the subject, an opinion? Oh and it's totally unreffed, fairly obvious as 95% of it seems to be lifted from the previously mentioned site. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK in this case, it's not a copyvio. Spartacus produces materials which are intended to be used to produce other educational material. I can't find a TOR, but all the material is pd. Their specialism is providing big chunks of primary source material that might otherwise be hard to track down.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC). 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.

Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Seen it --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Please to be checkings ones email. Ta,  Chzz  ►  18:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neptunekh...

...is now on a one-year block, so it's unlikely the user will be able to participate in any discussions off their own page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just about to go clear the page..... Someone really needs to put a 'do not notify' tickbox on Twinkle --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It reminded me of the occasional incident where someone gets blocked, and soon afterward gets a warning that "if you keep this up you may be blocked". Oops! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a "Notify creator if possible" box at the very top of Twinkle. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my valiant attempts to find Israeli heavy metal bassists, I must not have noticed it. Moo. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, it's not exactly prominent. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Hi Elen, I have a question about how BRD works. Suppose Editor A performs bold #1 and edits section X. Editor B then comes in and performs revert #1 on section X, then discuss #1 should take place to complete the first iteration of the cycle. Now, what if Editor B does not wait for discuss #1 to proceed and does bold #2 on section X. Does that technically violate the BRD cycle or do you count that as a new BRD cycle on the same section? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the relevant discussion is here: User talk:Magog the Ogre#Senkaku Islands. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now Magog has managed to taint the spirit of my hypothetical question by giving it context :-/. Regarding the dispute, the matter is now closed (at least for him). Despite his allegations of my close-mindedness on the matter, I actually have a pretty open mind about the issue. I went through the flow chart used in WP:BRD step by step and showed how BRD was violated. It seems unlikely that my assertions are wrong. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRD isn't meant as a mechanistic process, it's a descriptive guide to how to deal with conflicting views, and I'm not surprised that Magog's attempt to use it in a mechanistic way has backfired and ended in wikilawyering. When the BRD process is working, people will keep making changes incrementally, expecting to put the change back into the ongoing discussion for removal or tweaking.

Normally, if you're trying to control edit warring, 1RR is used instead, as in the example below. I would advise Magog to go over onto imposing 1RR on the article if he needs to keep order. If he had done that, it would have been perfectly clear.

Suppose the lede of an article subject to 1RR (say per 24hrs, and on all users) says "Jane Doe has two cats." The following amendments occur (say within an hour of each other):-

User:catlover - adds "beautiful Persian" to 'cats' User:verify - reverts with the edit summary "unsourced" User:catlover- reverts User:Verify, and then edits to add "white", so the article now reads "Jane Doe has two beautiful white Persian cats." Admin:noeditwar - blocks catlover for 24hours for breach of 1RR. Note that the outcome would have been the same if catlover had simply added "beautiful white Persian", as that's still reverting Verify.

Simples.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to barge in here sounding critical, but that wouldn't be a 1RR breach if I'm counting correctly. At that point in time catlover has only undone the edits of another editor once in 24 hours, since the very first edit wasn't a revert (assuming it was a direct addition, not undoing something verify had done previously). It's the whole "first mover" principle that works the same with 3RR: if all we're doing is counting, and not looking at the more general definition of edit-warring, the person who starts, "wins" (in the sense that their edit stays in the article, at least until 24 hours have elapsed). Or do I misunderstand something?Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can set a 1RR on all users, so the next person who reverts gets the sanction. It's useful where you have several editors supporting position A and several supporting position B, who have previously been reverting sequentially. It has the same effect that Magog is after, and it's drastic, but it makes it clear that it's reverting, rather than new edits that are the problem. In the specific example that I believe caused the question from Bob, Tenmai would have been in a sanctionable position because he had reverted the previous edit before going on to modify the text he wanted to replace it with (if I understood correctly).
In terms of BRD, it takes experienced editors who are prepared to co-operate to make it work - it's no good trying to use it as a means of control. If it's working, what you get is something like
  • User:catlover - adds "beautiful Persian" to 'cats'
  • User:verify - reverts with the edit summary "unsourced"
  • User:catlover - provides source on talkpage, notes that cats are white, proposes adding this info
  • User:prefersdogs - notes that source says Jane Doe used to own a dog
  • User:prefersdogs - adds "and used to own a dog"
  • User:hatecruft - reverts as UNDUE and comments on talkpage that deceased pets are beyond the pale
  • User:catlover- changes text to "owns two Persian cats and used to own a dog" with catlover's source
  • User:verify adds "white" to 'Persian cats' and comments on talkpage that we should reflect sources
  • User:hatecruft - replaces with "Jane Doe is a pet owner" and comments on talkpage about introducing TRIVIA
  • All users discuss whether it is trivia

This is the effect that Magog is commendably after, but it can't be enforced in the way that ORR and IRR can be, and no-one should be sanctioned for not discussing an edit. It requires editors working to gether in good faith. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of wiki-jargons that I am not used to. :)
My impression from Elen's post is that she agrees with me that Tenmei's action has placed him in a sanctionable position. While I am not particularly concerned about the whole 1RR vs. BRD at the moment, I believe there are now two matters that require attention:
  1. The admin in question had selectively sanctioned User:Lvhis for a rule violation while exempting other offenders (User:Tenmei) from punishment. For the sake of fairness, User:Tenmei should be given the same punishment.
  2. The admin in question had, on multiple occasions tried to shut off discussions regarding his apparent enforcement of double standards and implicitly accused whistle-blowers of having unreasonable agenda.
It will certainly be interesting to see how these issues are going to be handled. After all, administrators are supposed to be exemplars of WP conduct. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the jargon. Basically what I am saying is that Magog started from the wrong place, and should not be sanctioning anyone (Tenmei or Livhas) for a failure to discuss as BRD is not a rule of any kind, it's just a suggestion for helpful editing. Apart from anything else, sanctioning someone for not discussing on the talkpage violates a primary rule of Wikipedia that you can't force an editor carry out an action if their choice is to do nothing. If Magog wants to control edit warring, his best bet is to impose WP:1RRto control reversion, as you can sanction an editor for carrying out a prohibited action. I'm presuming he's watching this discussion, as he threw his 2 bits in at the start - I'd be glad to discuss this further with him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The finer details of whether or not Magog should've punished people for breaking BRD is something you admins should discuss. Regardless of outcome, #2 is still an issue that deserves to be discussed because it has something to do with admin conduct. I still lean towards applying a sanction on Tenmei for #1 because several admins (including our ever-present friend Qwyrxian) agreed to this [19]in the beginning and other admins had refused [20] to overturn Lvhis' block when he petitioned to have it revoked. If Tenmei is exempted from this because people decided to protest against the rule right when he's about to be sanctioned, some may argue that this course of action is taken so that Tenmei does not need to get a block-log entry even if that's not something on anyone's mind (and I am certainly not implying you have such intent, since you weren't even around in the beginning). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am here following the link Bob left to me. First of all, I would say I respected admin Magog the Ogre even he blocked me that time; but now I has been totally lost, confused, and disappointed by his decision on Tenmei's action. After reading the comments here, particularly the explanation from Elen, I learned more for these quite complicated wiki professional things and hope learn even more. From what I have perceived it sounds more clearly that, if I should be blocked as I have got, Tenmei shall get blocked too; or if Tenmei should not be blocked, I should have not been blocked, no matter what, 1RR or BRD cycle, is applying for here, i.e. just one standard. Another point is, that even if I broke something resulting in a block, I did that indeliberately, while Tenmei violated same rule (or whatever is) deliberately which interrupted an ongoing discussion by starting another weird "discussion". I hope a correction is needed here. If it is now really difficult to enforce a sanction on Tenmei, can it be feasible to add some corrective explanation on my block log to cancel that block? Although that block has been effective and expired, the correction is very necessary if I in fact should not be blocked using same standard applying for Tenmei. I hope there is no discrimination exist in editing wiki. --Lvhis (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid discrimination is a common element in Wikipedia, since it is a very political place. One of my motivations for pressing this matter is to see whether or not a simple and straight-forward matter like this will be derailed by personal favouritisms harboured by administrators. While the obvious red flag we see here is an unsatisfactory termination of debate by Magog the Ogre, a less obvious red flag is the "hands-off" stance taken by Qwyrxian, which is a marked contrast compared to his angry tirades against some harmless cartoons not too long ago. Though one can argue that he hadn't really followed this matter closely, the specificity of his comments on this issue suggests otherwise. It's also possible that he agreed with Magog the Ogre that Tenmei had not broken the BRD cycle. But considering Qwyrxian's nit-picky nature and intimate knowledge of wiki-laws (as demonstrated by his recent nit-pick of Elen's 1RR example), I don't think he'd keep quiet if he truly disagreed with my arguments :). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Tenmei had broken BRD (he didn't), it does not matter, because Tenmei has stated that he is temporarily stepping away from Senkaku Islands issues as he is worried his presence is causing a problem. Since Tenmei is no longer editing there, any block of him would be purely punitive (there's no editing to prevent), and thus expressly forbidden by the blocking policy. Why would Magog continue to debate when, even if we somehow concluded that there was a BRD violation, there would be nothing to do anyway? I did't need to be "hands on" because your argument is both irrelevant and wrong, and Magog made the right call in the first place. As for the cartoons, racism is never harmless; I accept that you don't see them as racist, I wish you would understand that I do, and that therefore they weren't "harmless". Since the issue was collapsed, and I took some time off to cool down, I was hoping that was the end of the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding this properly, you said Tenmei should not be blocked because he expressed a temporary interest in stepping away from the article. If that's the case, then can't anyone use that as an exploit to game the system? For example, a person can perform knowingly commit an act that will eventually result in a block and circumvent it by declaring a temporary wiki-break. As an admin, you should understand a block is more than a temporary denial of access, since it leaves a mark on the user history.
I am not sure how my argument is irrelevant or wrong. You'd have to tell me how. As far as I know, Elen agreed that Tenmei has put himself in a sanctionable position under Magog's strict BRD conditions. I've also shown exactly where the BRD process was broken by referencing the flowchart. I hope you understand by now that that I do not take claims very seriously unless there is a pretty solid supporting argument, which is something you have not provided (unless you are referring to your whole thing about "a user shouldn't be blocked if he agreed to stay away"). Suppose you plan to prove me wrong in your next response (if any), please do make explicit references to the flowchart. :)
As for your tirade against the comics, you considered it closed probably because you had happily dumped a load onto someone else and then declared the matter closed by citing how you were being taken advantage of :). I wouldn't deliberately force you into a discussion on the matter, but I will continue to make references to it wherever and whenever I feel like to, since I don't take very kindly to misguided self-righteous finger-pointing. By the way, I believe you were already told that characters in this cartoon series regularly spoke broken English. That nullified your whole rant about the orientals-speaking-engrish stereotype already. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :)[reply]
You're probably not familiar with WP:Blocking policy. The policy states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they should not be intended as a punishment (see Purpose and goals below), but this is sometimes not satisfied." Since, by the time the issue was raised and debated, Tenmei had already declared that they were done, no block is allowed to be issued. Your perception that part of the point is to leave some sort of permanent black mark is, in fact, incorrect. As an example, If I go through my watchlist, and find that someone was vandalizing a few days ago, even if they vandalized four or five pages, if they haven't edited again since then, I probably wouldn't be allowed to block them (exceptions exist). The question we have to ask is, would issuing Tenmei a one or two day block, now, be preventative? No, it certainly would not, since thy haven't been editing the topic in question and have stated they won't. I also hold that Tenmei didn't break BRD (if such a thing is possible--one of the things Elen is trying to point out, I think, is that it's not really that kind of process), but that debating with you why he didn't is a waste of time since we've already determined that we can't block Tenmei. Finally, please stop talking about the cartoons. I have very clearly told you that I find them to be offensive. Note that I didn't collapse the discussion--Benlinsquare did. That was the correct choice, since it was an unproductive discussion that had nothing to do with Senkaku Islands. You raising them again is an attempt to either bait me or to deliberately offend me; I don't care which, because you shouldn't be doing either. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly preventive value in issuing a block even when the subject has declared a wiki-break. As I've pointed out earlier, experienced users can easily game the system you described by declaring a wiki-break right before an expected block is issued. The fact that such loopholes are officially allowed will most certainly undermine the deterrence value of blocks. I suppose that could be what Tenmei had done too, he only declared a temporary leave from the article after I got involved in the debate.
You still haven't explained to me how Tenmei didn't interrupt the BRD cycle. I've provided my reasoning on why he has interrupted the BRD cycle and you are advised to attack my argument there if you want to claim the contrary. :)
It is not very nice of you to accuse others of "baiting" or "deliberately offending" you over the comics when you were the person who barged into a discussion and issued threats and insults :-). A simple "Hey, I am tremendously sorry about barking up the wrong tree" would've been satisfactory". But instead you were all "I am not talking about this because you are taking advantage of me", which is not very satisfactory. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwyrxian, your interpretation of block policy toward the real case for Tenmei is incorrect. The very unfair and injustice point for this case is here: when I was reported by John Smith's to Magog the Ogre, I was swiftly blocked by Magog the Ogre in less than 2 hours. When I reported Magog that Tenmei was violating BRD strictly set by Magog on 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC), and repeated my report on 03:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC), and on 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC), and on 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC), there was nothing happened until 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC), which had more than 31 hours past. During this period, Tenmei was very actively editing in the talk page of the page where he violated the BRD, and fought against my report in Magog the Ogre's talk page. Tenmei declared to temporary withdrew from editing relevant page on 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC), when it was about 11 hours after Magog the Ogre denied my report and a debate about this violation began. When I was blocked, I also ensured in my appeal that I would not change what Magog had reverted to, but my appeal was denied by admins including Magog. So, Qwyrxian, your interpretation is incorrect for this case when comparing the treatments what Tenmei got and what I got. --Lvhis (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GENTLEMEN! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room. My opinion is as follows:-

  1. Magog picked the wrong tool to try to control edit warring.
  2. Magog made a mistake blocking Lvhis (reasons given above), and another mistake not blocking Tenmei
  3. However, too much time has now passed to make it reasonable to block Tenmei, so he isn't going to be blocked for that instance
  4. If you remain pissed off with Magog, Wikipedia:Request for comment/Magog the Ogre awaits

Dual accounts

Hello,

I have two Wikipedia accounts: User:Freekra and User:FiachraByrne. The Freekra account was created in late November 2009 and I stopped using it in early December 2009. The FiachraByrne account was created in February 2011 and is in use down to the present. I created the second account because I forgot the password to my first account and I don't think I've logged into it since December 2009. I did post this information before when, I think, I applied for either rollback or reviewer privileges. However I've only just read WP:Puppet policy today.

I guess that it's not possible to amalgamate these two accounts? If not, could you block my old account please? Thanks.FiachraByrne (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's not possible to merge accounts I'm afraid. What you can do is redirect the User and Talkpage of Freekra to FiachraByrne, if you have edits on the old account that you want to acknowledge. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads&oldid=443726427"