User talk:Elen of the Roads

User:Saygi1

This editor came off the block for edit warring on Lotfi A. Zadeh and immediately started back in doing what you blocked him for. He's using a You Tube video as a source], which doesn't say what he thinks it says, and does not support the addition to the article he wishes to make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have counselled him with a cluebat. I think you could actually use that source (or this source [1] in the personal life and beliefs section (if you weren't trying to make a point about how Azerbaijani he is), and if there is a source, I feel the article could usefully list all the languages that he speaks, as this source makes reference to his multilinguality as something that led him to fuzzy logic. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if properly sourced, that would be a good addition to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the other source, which did indeed have a more moderate version of what Saygi1 has been attempting to add to the article, that Zadeh's 3 years of schooling in Baku "had a significant and long-lasting influence on my thinking and my way of looking at things." I've added that to the article using that source, along with another pull quote. I'll let Saygi1 know on his his talk page, but I doubt it's going to do much good, as he's appraently firmly convinced that I'm a POV warrior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

• News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia like "apples and chairs"; should anyone who's anyone get an article?; and why fighting and barriers to editing may be useful after all

• WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport

• Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care

• Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle

• Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You were quoted

An admin cited this as his evidence in a recent arbitration case. I thought he might've misinterpreted your verdict in our little discussion in the past, but maybe I am wrong. [2] --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I said that Lhvis did not warrant a block, but I certainly recall saying I believed Tenmei did warrant one...no, wait. I did say that I believed you shouldn't block a user just for a single instance failure to discuss. So that would imply that Lhvis shouldn't have been blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the concept of interest was really the matter about whether or not was in Tenmei a sanctionable position based on the said admin's special BRD rules. Based on your posts [3], I interpreted that as a "Yes, Tenmei should theoretically blocked based on those rules but no, those BRD=ban rules should not have been used in the first place". For reference, here's what I wrote about you in the Evidence page (in less than 5 words) [4]).

It would be nice if this can be sorted out, since I am now accused of lying, edit-warring, and being all sorts of nasty stuff for somehow allegedly misinterpreting your intent. I'd apologize to you if I've somehow misunderstood your words. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to add... unlike what was alleged about me, I did not ever contest Lvhis' block. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyhow, I am not asking you to write a block in the ArbCom case. I suppose I am simply looking for boolean answer for two questions:

1. Did I misinterpret your message?
2. Did the person in the diff misinterpret your message?

I understand you recused and thus would probably prefer not to get involved, but I thought it'd be nice to get a small bit of clarification from you. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob, it may not be appropriate to ask/push Elen to repeat her opinion at current moment. Particularly the Arb/Case/SI/Workshop page has been now heated up so much since Qwyrxian et al posted his or their proposed remedies for banning other parties but lacking proposed principles. I still believe Elen's that opinion is very correct, and Magog's interpretation in his "Evidence" is incorrect. This is not just because I might be benefited from that, also because it is for justice and fairness that should be proved by this free Wikipedia project. I mentioned in my response that Magog used 2 standards, one tough and one soft, in the case in question. If I did not misinterpret Elen's this points, she meant it would be better not to apply that sanction only in a mechanistic way. By my understanding, if there is some narrow flexible range or room for that sanction (i.e. tiny tougher ↔ tiny softer), the edit quality could be considered as a factor. In this case, Magog also admitted that "Lvhis was a better faith contributor" that was 100% compatible with Elen "believed Lvhis was making a good faith contribution, while Tenmei was not" [5]. Therefore, my edit should have been treated as "B" → "B" → "B", neither "R" nor violating "BRD", Tenmei's edit should have been treated as violating "BRD" by breaking the ongoing "D", making "BRD" → "BRD". Elen's opinion that I should have not been blocked while Tenmei should have been blocked makes perfect sense here. The mistake Magog made is he treated the two edits totally in an opposite way. That is why Elen pointed he made two mistakes. Although Magog pointed a truth that I am not an en-N, I am confident I have construed Elen's opinion correctly by reading that whole section several times, and also confident that Elen's opinion is correct and more fit WP's spirit and policies. Even conceding a bit, using very mechanistic way, I am certain Magog still has at least made one mistake there but not as he insisted he did both correct. --Lvhis (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor Elen, our harassment of her has been relentless :). What's an en-N? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Native speakers of English language. --Lvhis (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone35

Sorry for not being too responsive on that request - I was traveling and my internet access was rather sporadic. I probably would agree to that reduction conditioned on the acceptance of a mentorship - so I'm not really questioning your action on the merits, but I just don't see a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to modify it in that thread. Mind explaining your thoughts on that one? T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that most of the time your strategy on bans is totally valid, as the edit warriors seem to wait out bans and then start again. Also, when he first made the appeal, Someone35 was still saying "it wasn't me, I didn't do it", which doesn't inspire confidence. He has since modified his stance (unfortunately he's done it by modifying his statements without using strike/insert markers, so it doesn't jump out). In the course of the discussion, Demiumrge1000, Wikifan12345, Cptnono, and Malik Shabazz all expressed the view that a lesser sanction with mentorship was preferable with this young editor who might thus be instructed in more profitable ways, and two of them offered to mentor him/her. Zero0000 only expressed concern that Someone35 seemed not to have recognised the problem, saying he could make no decision until he did so. Russavia argued that Someone35 should have had a longer block for incivility to start with, and there was a general sense that other editors were not convinced in this particular case that the edits concerned were an IP issue as much as a civility issue. There also seemed no enthusiasm for imposing your sanction strategy on a relatively new editor and first time offender, who also did contribute constructively. So I did think there was an active consensus of editors, none were involved in the usual POV warrior type dispute with him, and I noted that Nableezy had accepted his apology for the actions which had resulted in the original block. I do apologise though - I didn't realise you were unavailable or I would have waited longer for you to respond to the proposal. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see. You take a broader view of the word "uninvolved" than I do. No worries. T. Canens (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

J3mm0

After making a comment/vote in an AfD, which is here [6], I felt it would be reasonable to leave a note on the sponsoring author's talk page, reiterating that the issue was not personal and encouraging further WP participation. (The editor seemed to be quite passionate, so some encouragement might help?) The account has been indefinitely (i.e. long term) blocked because there is "reason to believe more than one person is operating this account." I was aware that sockpuppetry is actively discouraged on Wikipedia. The reason for blocking here tho is a little different than that. While I do not agree with multiple people using an account either, I am curious as to whether multiple users on an account are actually against stated policy, and if so, whether you could direct my reading so that I have a better understanding. Thank you for taking the time to give me some insight and learning. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ROLE is the policy that you are looking for. In this editor's case, I think we've dealt with the multiple account problem. I do believe this is a mother with a son who suffered a brain injury while serving his country, and if editing for him were the only problem, I would be prepared to lift the block as she has said that she will stop adding his edits as well as her own (nothing to stop him creating his own account - or if his injury is such that he needs assistance, his carer actually doing the typing for him).

The reason this editor is still blocked is that she has stated clearly and often that the only reason she wants to edit Wikipedia is to create a positive article on Julien Modica. There is obviously a raft of problems with this, and so far efforts to explain this have not been well received. You can see from the talkpage that the editor does not accept that the issue is around our notability standards - for example, her comments that we have articles on cancer survivors such as Christina Applegate who is notable for more than just being a cancer survivor. I liked your comments at the AfD about applying the criteria equally. You might have more success in discussing this with the editor. If she can see what the problem has been with her editing and approach, a further unblock appeal may well be successful. If you take it up, I wish you success. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to the specific policy. A sense of fair play drew me toward seeking additional context, and the intertwined considerations, while sad, fully assuage my intrigue. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you issue a ruling...

Does this mean that I can't ask Pmanderson a question that might pertain to a point of style? I have in the past, but will avoid doing so if it will get him in trouble. Or, for instance, if we were having a discussion at the Classical Greece and Rome project about whether it should be "ancient Rome" or "Ancient Rome," he wouldn't be allowed to contribute to that discussion? Even if someone said "I'd like to have Pmanderson's opinion on this?" (which I've said in the past as well). Cynwolfe (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. The restriction is quite widely construed, and applies anywhere on the project. In this early stage of the ban he would be well advised to avoid all discussion of this type, because it is a WP:MOS/technical use of English related discussion, and he doesn't want to be seen as pushing the boundaries. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, ma'am. I appreciate your balanced approach to this longstanding community issue. I have to say one thing out of loyalty and fairness: I consider this a serious loss to the Greece & Rome project, where PMA's experience and knowledge are one of our greatest assets. I assume, however, he can still answer questions about content? And if I wanted his opinion on what to name a new article, would this be considered within the topic ban? And you seem to emphasize "English related," meaning he could address, say, questions about Latin? I'm really not trying to make a point; I would want to support behavior that allowed him to remain on WP, but I'm … I'm … well, OK, I'm plenty pissed that his opinion can't be asked even where it's welcome. (Not pissed at you; you're doing a needed job.) I suppose it's no secret that I would rather deal with a hundred PMAs than one politely passive-aggressive POV-pushing ignoramus. I shall now close my eyes and go about my business, meek, neutered, and Borg-like. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The restriction is on discussions to do with WP:MOS and the technical use of English (given that this whole thing started with a stupid argument about using an accent in the word crepe]]. Discussion of content is fine. If he would master the art of walking away from certain arguments, he would do a lot better, but that's rather a counsel of perfection. As things stand, those he has pissed off would quickly pick up on any involvement in the discussion you mentioned. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I wasn't paying a lot of attention to this, and then when it floated into my field of vision, I realized I would need to modify my interactions. Again, please understand that none of my negative comments are directed at you. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I imagine it's rather like the feeling when your striker ends up with a three match suspension after a second yellow card for some piddling incident. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment in the ANI discussion. I wonder if you explicitly intended your closure of PMA's ban discussion to leave him free to participate in article title and move discussions. There was a relevant part of the discussion you closed that had 13 supports for explicitly excluding him from such discussions, but I'm not sure if you felt that other parts of the thread took away from any clear consensus on that point. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I did see that there were comments about banning him entirely from title/move discussions, but the discussion kept expanding and contracting the terms of a proposed ban, and as all the recent problems had got some connection to MOS or use of English, I thought the ban imposed would be enough. I didn't intend to ban him from discussing whether it should be called Shiloh or Pittsburg Landings, but if he gets into trouble he's likely to either hit the technical english language restriction, or the stricture that if he gets into trouble he's likely to be banned from the project. If he has any sense, he'll stay away from trouble, if he doesn't, I don't think anyone is going to have sympathy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Ping, v.r. Cla68 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Recused due to previous disagreements with Cirt. For some reason I'm not shown as such, I'll have to get that changed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Sambokim

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sambokim_again seems to have gotten lost in the AN/I shuffle--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've two weeked the IP, although I assume he was at his granny's for lunch today as he hasn't reverted you. Let me know if you get more rogue edits and I'll semi the articles for a couple of weeks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The season starts this Saturday, so I expect it'll pick up, especially if Ric does anything good.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

124.207.64.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) my kingdom for a sambo sized canon I could fire him out of..I'd say a semi on the articles that IP edited.--Crossmr (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Some slightly racist people I know, use "sambo" as a humorously racist term. (More in patronising affection than as a slur.) That was not anyone's intent of course, but best to be careful with how one uses the word. I was going to arbitrarily retitle this section "Another sockpuppet of User:Whatever" but I wasn't sure if that was appropriate or accurate or what.

Sorry to be the latest reincarnation of the politically correct police; it's actually quite possible that the people I know who use the word this way are the only people who do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the name he goes by, nothing inappropriate about that.--Crossmr (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, a dictionary describes it as "Disparaging and Offensive". If someone used "the N word" as part of their username, I'm not sure you'd use that in the same way. Or at least - I'd hope not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And another, perhaps an indefinite/very long semi on this article [7].--Crossmr (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 22:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 22:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 23:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 23:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked

• In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0

• WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

• Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

• Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications

• Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live

• Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

citation bots

Elen, is there no way to keep citation bots off an article? I'm actively working on Sexuality in ancient Rome, and I do not want consolidated footnotes till I'm done (which should be soon, since I'm quite sick of the subject and think I only have one more section to go). I find these "abcd" footnotes very confusing, as how do I know which letter to click on to return to my point in the text? I thought I'd added a template that would keep this thing away ({{bots|deny=citation bot}}). And when I look in the edit history, I don't even see where it happened so I can revert it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see where the bot did it either. Are you sure it was citation bot? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Userfy deleted article

Hello, since you've restored a couple of articles on request that were involved in the Marshallsumpter deletion, could you restore a copy of transcription start site to my userspace please? I was going to start from scratch but the article has been vouched for as containing useful information. Many thanks Jebus989^✰ 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's at User:Jebus989/Transcription start site. Have fun. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After looking at it, I should have stuck to my guns and started anew, it's pure Marshallsumpter: copyvios, CWW and non-sensical. Cheers for doing it anyway Jebus989^✰ 21:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Do you want me to bin it again? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah please, I stuck a db-u1 on it but if that's not proper procedure for a restored article feel free to do it the right way Jebus989^✰ 21:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17

Hi,

Can you have a look at semi-prot for this page, perhaps for the duration of the show (I did make the request at WP:RPP last night but looks like it has a back log.)I am WP:3RR'ed out on the page now. Mtking ^(edits) 22:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've given it another month. When does he show end? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure exactly when it ends, but lets hope that the IP's find something else to entertain themselves over the next month and any further extension to the protection is not needed. Mtking ^(edits) 23:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

question

Why did you delete f'n boot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.255.229.243 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If the creator blanks the page, it is usually deleted automatically. The page I could see (behind the one that was blanked) was a rant about censorship. Was the original actually about the organisation? If so, read WP:GNG and WP:ORG to see if the organisation meets those criteria. If it does, rewrite the article (you'll need to remember to log in first) including references to any secondary sources (newspaper or magazine articles perhaps) that would support its notability in Wikipedia terms.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Elen of the Roads! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi, I think as part of the reverts and protection settings for Jesus, you may have totally unprotected the page - perhaps via a typo.

Up to a day ago, the page was semi-protected so IPs could not edit it, evidenced by the fact that there were no ClueBot actions there for a long time. Now, IPs have come to vandalize, and ClueBot is reverting some cases, we have to revert some other cases.

I think it may be a good idea to let the protection go back to where it was a few days ago, because it had brought stability to the page and you probably did not intend to change it anyway. Your help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I did. Hopefully have put it right now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

wikiblicky blah

Thanks for your message. I did understand what you meant but this guy just wasn't getting it. He still may not, but at this point we have tried our best. Unless i see evidence of his actually reading our policies, after this my approach will be, DNFTT. But thanks for stepping in too. he needs to know that this is not just one person's opinion! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ellen I am not good with warning templates but could you plkease look at my most recent exchange with User talk:Wikiglobaleditor? I want to make sure he is properly warned about talk page behavior so if he uses article talk pages to soap box he can be sanctioned - without a clear and approprioate warning that wouldn't be fair. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

After his latest response to you [8] I have upped the block to indefinite. I don't want him editing again unless/until I'm sure he understands our policies. If you think that's a bit much, I've asked for a review at WP:AN [9]] Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I trust your judgment. I hope that we have made the reasons clear, in case he appeals. Let me know if there is anything more to be done. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Northamerica1000

If you have a moment, could you take a look at the contributions and talk page history of User:Northamerica1000? I'm afraid a situation is brewing there but I'm not sure how it should be dealt with, so I thought to ask you for some advice. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are so inclined...

coul you take a look at this edit of mine? I removed a paragraph from the article Azerbaijani American which speculated about what the next Census results would show about the number of Azerbaijani Americans in the U.S. Although the paragraph was heavily referenced, the majority of putatively factual citations were from Azerbaijani sources, which I do not think are particularly reliable in this instance, plus there were general sources about undercounting in the census, with no mention of application to Azerbaijanis, and other non-reliable cites. (For instance, a proclamation from the Brooklyn Borough President which mentions 400,000 Azerbaijanis in the U.S. Needless to say, the Boro Prez simply signs what is written on the proclamation by someone else, usually a publicist, and in any case is not a reliable source abour ethnic populations of the U.S.) In total, the entire paragraph failed WP:CRYSTAL because it attempted to predict what the Census will say, when we can simply wait for the results and it will say what it says.

In any case, that was my reasoning, and, since the material was added by User:Saygi1, with whom I had a recent dispute, I thought you might be good enough to take a look at what I did to see if I went too far, prejudiced (perhaps) by my previous interactions with him. If you'd rather not, that's fine, no problem, but thanks for considering it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

BMK, removing a large paragraph with some 18 (!) reliable and verifiable sources cruicial to the article about an ethno-national group of people in U.S., by citing an exaggerated concern of "speculated about what the next Census results would show" is an overkill, don't you think? I know you have a tendency to remove sourced information, but previously it was only 2-4 sources, now it's 18.

• For starters, you can simply re-phrase any sentence you feel "speculated", instead of just reverting, like you've done in the past on another article I edited (hmm, I wonder if you are targeting me? On the other hand, you would never do smth like, right?). In any case, your feeling that your previous interaction with me makes you "perhaps" prejudiced is (perhaps) an astute observation.
• Secondly, there is no "attempt to predict what the Census will say" as you say - all the article says is: "The 2010 U.S. Census results, to be released by the end of 2011, are expected to reflect a more current official estimate on the number of Azerbaijanis in the U.S." How's that a "prediction"? Naturally, a 2010 Census would give figures up till 2010 - more current than 2000 figures. How's that an "attempt to predict"? Although, Census results can only show an increase as is clear from the cited facts, such as annual statistics of naturalizations between 2000 and 2010 (the years of Census) and the fact of natural growth (more births over deaths) typicaly for this community. However, since it can border on WP:OR, it can be re-phrased, and I will do so to alleviate any possible concerns. Again, you could have simply re-phrased just one sentence to make a good-faith edit instead of removing a huge block of sourced material like you did.
• Thirdly, there are virtually no "Azerbaijani sources" cited - some 95% of sources are American newspapers, news sources and other U.S. government, media and NGO sources. Only one source is from an Azerbaijani source - an article by Dr. Paul Goble, an American citizen, ex-CIA analyst and RFE/RL high ranking executive, that was published by the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy.
• Yet even if there would have been many Azerbaijani sources - that's OK, too, as the article is about Azerbaijani-Americans, and naturally, Azerbaijanis would research that topic most. Sounds quite logical, don't you think? I think it's natural that Italian Coppolla makes films about Italian culture, Jewish Spielberg about Jews, Scottish Gibson about Scotts, Nobel-prize winning Turkish author Pamuk writing about Turks, Russian authors writing about Russians, Arab-American Dr. Zogby famous for his research on Arab-American community, etc.
• If by "Azerbaijani sources" you mean the fact that Azerbaijani-Americans were interviewed or published by the U.S. newspapers and sources - so? Is that prohibited? Who else should give interviews, or know more about their own community - the people themselves, or someone else? How's a statement from John Doe about Azerbaijani-Americans any more reliable than a statement from a Azer (a typical Azerbaijani name) about Irish-Americans or a statement from Hans (a Germanic name) about African-Americans, or Jose (Hispanic name) about Chinese-Americans?
• Fourth, the claim "general sources about undercounting in the census, with no mention of application to Azerbaijanis" and that being "non-reliable cites" is really a wild overstretch. All these sources clearly state that Census undercount affects primarily minorities (as well as poor, which many immigrant minorities are in the their first 10 years of life, before earning more income than average citizens, and children, which affects everyone). None of the census undercount studies need to cite all the ethnic groups ("minorities") by name in order to be valid sources for citing in Wikipedia. It's enough that they all concur that minorities, especially immigrant minorities, are particularly affected by this, and then proceed to cite several cases, such as undercount of Brooklyn, NY residents (where a large number of Azerbaijani-Americans lives), or undercount of Iranian-American community (which is very close to the Azerbaijani-American community as is proven by multiple sources).
• Fifth, you don't know what "Boro Prez" does or signs. If you visit all their websites or call them, you will find out that 1) they don't always issue such documents, and can refuse, and do refuse all the time; 2) they do their own research and verification. But more importantly, they, being a government source, are a reliable and verifiable source. And we have not one, but three (3) such government proclamations. It's just as reliable as a census, for example, since we already have shown that census routinely undercounts, and then shown the State Department and the White House ignore the US Census figures and cite much larger figures for the, for example, Iranian-American community (e.g., if the 2000 census reports smth like 338,000 Iranian-Americans, then White House and State Department say there are 2 million Iranian-Americans). --Saygi1 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

re-phrased some of the sentences in the new version, along with restoring the paragraph with 18 valuable, reliable and verifiable sources that BMK blanked out [10]. Also, per the Census undercount discussion, note that I added 3 new US Census Bureau studies on the undercount as well as one study of the effect of undercount on the US Congress and one testimony in the US Senate about the Census 2010. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed again per WP:CRYSTAL. Please read this policy, which you do not seem to understand. Wikipedia is not for speculation about what might happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You did not remove it per WP:CRYSTAL as you try to claim again, as there are no speculations there, and you could have easily discussed it with specifics on the Talk page and then re-worded it. You removed it per WP:REVENGE and WP:VINDICTIVE PERSON, pure and simple. You removed, once again, a lot of sourced information that several other editors and admins have not removed over the past month - and they can read and think, too. So please, stop your malicious editing, especially since you admit on your own talk page that "the topic area is so far afield from my natural haunting grounds", i.e,. a WP:LACK. Add to that WP:BATHWATER and WP:RUSH although they are about deleting the whole article, and in this case, half of the article. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow up on Saygi1's behavior

I'm making this comment here, as you were the administrator who has previously dealt with the disruptions of Saygi1. Please note that this user, Saygi1, continues disrupt articles that in the Azerbaijan topical area, despite the fact that this area is subject to several ArbCom cases. He continues to edit-war and remove a dispute tag from a disputed article, without a consensus on the talk page [11]. He's unilaterally removed the dispute tag 5 times now, and despite objections several other editors on the talk page.[12] I've raised the issue of Saygi1's disruptive conduct here[13] and here[14], and as you can see, those two Wikipedians also agree that there is an issue with Saygi1's conduct and behavior in general. A WP:SPA by the name of User:5aul is also making blind sweeping reverts on the same page, and removing the tag, without as much as an edit summary.[15] I suspect the latter of being the meatpuppet of Saygi1 who himself is most likely an ArbCom sanction-evading sock-puppet/reincarnation of an old user, given the fact that he was editing at an expert level of familiarity with complicated Wikipedia codes from the get-go, and that this topical area was subject of several ArbCom, and most regular Azerbaijani editors have bee subject to such sanctions. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo777, I've objected to your edit warring and malicious editing numerous times as well, such as here [16] and here [17]. So I've complained plenty about your bad faith and groundless placement of a tag that has been disputed and reverted by other editors. You never substantiated your disruptive actions. You talk much about some meat- sock-puppets, are you one yourself? Because an editor who collaborates with you has been coming and helping to revert the page on your behalf before. I don't know what so impressed you in my "expert level of familiarity with complicated Wikipedia codes" - I am greatly honored, but what codes are complicated? I know far more complicated codes than Wikipedia, so wouldn't consider it "complicated". As of Arbcom - I've checked it, it's about Azerbaijan and Armenia, two nation-states and the pages and articles that are directly related to them. The article Azerbaijani American is not related to it any more than Armenian American. Also, when I placed the dispute tag on Iranian American, and substantiated it in the talk page, your friends removed it still. In general, please substantiate your edits and your complaints - don't just throw everything you have hoping it will "stick". And why are you on this page anyway? --Saygi1 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The ArbCom in question[18] covers ALL TOPICS THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with Azerbaijan, which includes Azerbaijani-Americans. And for the record, you've just acknowledged that you're aware of the ArbCom in question, which should save the admins the trouble of warning you about it, before applying the sanctions to you. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Kurdo777, I've become aware of it from your constant reminders of it on all the boards, and no, it doesn't apply in this case, as nowhere in the ArbCom does it say that. The articles have to be directly and completely relevant to both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in this case, it is neither directly relevant to Armenia, nor is it really that directly related to Azerbaijan. Otherwise, one can claim that pages about IMF, WorldBank, FIFA, and anything else that has Azerbaijan's membership (and incidentally, Armenia's) should all be part of the ArbCom, and that's just not the case. By the way, I hope you understand that your edits of anything directly relevant to Azerbaijan and Armenia falls under the Arbcom? --Saygi1 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Saygi1 - you are very evidently trying to advance some POV related to Azerbaijan, Azerbaijanis, or similar. AS Kurdo777 points out, you are in danger of falling foul of these sanctions. I recommend that you be very careful to edit neutrally and explain openly any point you are trying to make, to avoid being misconstrued. Elen on the Roads:talk to me 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen on the Roads, but user Kurdo777 has shown his POV and true intentions on several other pages, which I brought to his and admins' attention. I don't know what POV related to Azerbaijan/Azerbaijanis or similar have I ever advanced on the page Azerbaijani American aside from expanding and improving the article with a huge number of verifiable sources (95% US sources, by the way). Unfortunately, I have to say that Kurdo777 is editing in bad faith, and has never once contributed anything positive to the article in question, as he seems to be interested in letting that article rot and just edit war and disrupt (I've said it to him many times, and he never denied it, by the way). --Saygi1 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Media copyright question - Romania

Hi Elen. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Radio3net? There's a concern that the Romanian government are breaking copyright laws by hosting albums on their radio station. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Saygi1 again

Saygi1 totally ignored you warning. He is now taken his disruption to a whole new level, and has engaged in WP:Hounding, following me and Takabeg with whom he has a dispute on Azerbaijani-Americans, to pages he's never edited before, making reverts and borderline personal attacks in edit summaries/talk page comments.[19][20][21] How long before this kind of obvious WP:Disruption by a POV-pushing WP:SPA is dealt with? Do you really think this user was a new user when he signed up? please just take a look at his very first five edits. [22] He was quite familiar with complicated wiki codes, like making redirects, within an hour of registering to Wikipedia. Not to mention that he umped into a hot spot to edit-war right after creating this username? And he's been making reverts and causing disruption all over Wiki ever since. Doesn't this raise any red flags? Where does the WP:AGF end and common sense begin? Kurdo777 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo777, since you are making many reverts and undiscussed, groundless removals of information per your POV view in Azerbaijani American, all I had to do was look at your list of last "contributions" (as Wikipedia easily allows and encourages to do) and see this pattern repeat again and again on other Azerbaijani-related articles. Shows that you are onto something. It's not "hounding" as I haven't followed or reverted all your edits, only a small fraction. Every single restoration of the article back to its normal state is because you failed to substantiate your bad faith edits that run counter to evidence and facts. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Bwilkins's talk page.
Message added 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WalkerThrough

Hi Elen, unfortunately I've deleted everything; the only interesting parts were those I posted on the talkpage though. The rest was a long-winded explanation of how he'd tried his best to edit along the lines of policy (which of course he hadn't). To be fair, he did offer at one point to suggest that if he was unblocked he'd post all his suggested changes on talk pages, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I can forward some which I received. If they are of any interest. I'm travelling, now in Spain, and am not in a position to evaluate. Lugnad (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnad, would appreciate that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Talk:Jesus Fruitloop"

He's actually been posting all kinda of ridiculous crap in various articles for a half-decade. I've created an entry at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested which may make it harder for him to post if approved. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Lets hope it gets picked up. He posted an unblock request for one of the IPs at unblock-l that was totally off the wall as well - it started "'Elen of the Roads is rather naive as there is a simple way to determine what the fictitious Jesus really is.' Jesus is a Jew. Jews attend Saturday Synagogues. Synagogues are the Synagogues of Satan as per Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 so Jesus is the son of Satan. Period, as you say." and went on for three pages. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz‎

Hi Elen. I have recently filed an RfC on Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I would prefer it to be a productive RfC - and as such I would like to adhere to one of his requests that you confirm there is a basis for dispute. I am not asking you to endorse or oppose the summary, though you are welcome to, I would just like you to confirm that this not a frivolous RfC. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've endorsed. I think it's a shame that it's come to this, but I think it might help him to take it seriously. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen, my priority was that Kiefer might actually be a willing participant, and make the whole thing actually a worthwhile use of the community's (and my) time. Seems he may not be, in which case the RfC will proceed without him, but at least I've tried. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See my note on his talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw the note and was very disappointed by it: "it never comes out well for the editor who attempts to ignore the issue". A sitting arbitrator should know better than to use such intimidating language to coerce another editor. Geometry guy 22:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Geometry Guy, I was merely repeating my advice given to Kiefer.Wolfowitz previously, when I advised him to engage with a more informal dispute resolution process. As predicted then, his attempts to ignore/stonewall the issue did not turn out well - look, here we are at a RfC. Kiefer's bizarre argument (made two months ago as well [23]) that he cannot attend to the RfC for two months, but intends to continue to edit freely during that time, are not going to sit well with anyone. It's certainly not a threat from me, as I won't be making any kind of decision relating to the RfC, but in my experience an individual who ignores dispute resolution processes and persists in the problematic behaviour (important point - if the subject chooses not to attend in person, but takes the message away, then of course that may stop further problems) tends to find themselves summarily blocked or banned at WP:ANI. Kiefer needs to see dispute resolution in a different light - he's not dealing with editors who are rabidly against him (Worm and I thought well of him until this blew up in August) and if he engaged with the community, it could probably be all hashed out to every one's benefit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it is a second offence then! I can likewise guarantee that not a single Arbcom subcommittee will get done over for 15 bob a week. That's not a threat, but an offer of help and support :)

I do not doubt your sincerely belief that you are advising Kiefer in his best interests, but that does not make coercion acceptable. Furthermore, in your reply, you not only presume to know what is best for Kiefer, but also that you know what may or may not "sit well" with the entire editing community! That diverse community ranges from editors for whom Wikipedia is an online roleplaying game to those who actually come here to contribute significant content. It is the latter kind of editor that has my respect, and if an editor like Kiefer chooses to spend his volunteered leisure time improving articles rather than engaging in playground politics, then that sits very well with me. Any negative consequences of such a choice reflect badly on Wikipedia, not the editor. Geometry guy 18:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if he decided to ignore the entire proceedings but stuck to editing articles rather than fussing about what other editors have on their userpages and stopped taking the piss out of people's usernames when it clearly annoys them, half of this would go away immediately. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And the other half? Geometry guy 19:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The other half appears to do with his reaction to political items.... Always a tricky subject for anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But an important one, and a subject that Wikipedia is ill-equipped to handle. It cannot even handle internal disagreement about whether minors should be admins. That aside, thank you for your concise summary of the editing issues you feel KW needs to address. However, no dispute is entirely one-sided: can you also summarize the issues you believe other editors need to address to restore normal working relations? Geometry guy 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe in Worm's case he was genuinely nonplussed that his attempts to resolve things amicably got the reception that they did - Kiefer basically treated him like a junior tick and told him to run along and stop bothering his elders and betters. Worm waited to see if he would stop the behaviour that he perceived as a problem, and raised this when he was of the opinion that he hadn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, you have not answered the question. I am not asking you to sympathize with Worm here. Maybe he was an innocent bystander who got caught up in events, and did the right thing^TM.

Instead, I am asking for your concise summary of issues that other editors need to address (Demiurge, for example?). If you believe that no other editor has even been at minor fault at any stage and that no other editor has anything to learn from the dispute, then you are at liberty to state that view. Geometry guy 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, this RfC has a large component about how Kiefer behaves towards other people who are not the filing parties. I appreciate that there may be an element of 'when did you stop beating your wife here', but if he wasn't obsessing over the age of certain users and making accusations without supporting evidence, then there would be no reason for the filing parties to interact with him over these issues. If he hadn't behaved like such an arrogant sod (just going on what he typed into the edit box - I've no idea what he's actually like as I've never met him) this could have been sorted out long ago. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blimey Elen, you must be in politics, as you still haven't answered the question. I didn't say "filing parties". In any dispute it takes two to tango, but rather than showing leadership in dispute resolution, you take a one-sided position, make pointless arguments using counterfactuals, and refer to one party as (oh lets be very careful here per WP:NPA "behaving like") an arrogant sod. Still very disappointed, Geometry guy 21:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have an odd view of what an RfC/U is for..... Mismatch of expectations perhaps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think RfC/U is a structurally flawed process, and my view of it is far more cynical than you imagine. It sets up an asymmetrical relation between involved parties, putting one user on the defensive, while encouraging others to justify the need for the RfC/U by prosecuting their case vigorously. I have no expectations of such a process and would not recommend anyone who does not have a strong masochistic streak to subject themselves to it.

However, you refer to RfC/U as "dispute resolution" and as something beneficial that KW should be "encouraged to engage with" in his own "best interests". So is an RfC/U for dispute resolution, or dispute escalation? Is it a way to help parties reach mutually understanding and agreement with the help of impartial outside observers, or is it a village stocks for slinging mud at arrogant sods and a tick-box on the road to arbitration? Those who claim to believe in the former should at the very least act like they do. In this respect, I find Worm TT's approach to the RfC more admirable and convincing than your own. Geometry guy 22:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It has the potential to be either. More collegial editors will probably "settle out of court" and avoid things ever getting to this stage, more combative editors will just have a row at this stage, and eventually end up at Arbcom. I'm not sure anyone ever goes away happy, on any side, but sometimes it does defuse a situation, either because the subject changes behaviour/avoids that area/stays away from that person or because the filing party is persuaded that it is not a serious problem really. Sometimes what happens is that the subject brings all their friends, ignores the process, or writes walls of impenetrable text, and the matter goes away for a while, until it blows up and they find themselves banned. Sometimes it is obvious that the filing party is acting in incredibly bad faith, and that blows up in their face. So no, not perfect. But then perfection is only for Allah, or so they say. The rest of us are just human. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying more candidly and thoughtfully. Geometry guy 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps slightly off-topic here: I couldn't help notice that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics has a notice about the RfCU on KW, even though the dispute involves no mathematics articles or topics. WikiProjects being used as WP:CANVASSing venues is apparently a concern that has been raised for instance in the MfD of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism, where the Math project was given as a beyond-reproach example of sorts. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is off-topic to the extent that I was brought to the RfC via KWs talk page, not because of any WikiProject notice. My contact with him is primary as a reviewer who occasionally reviews technical content: KW currently has an article at FAC which I extensively and critically reviewed over the weekend. Geometry guy 22:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

He posted one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics (pretty nearly just as unrelated) as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that he doesn't fall out with the Maths people - and there isn't a location suitable to advertising to where the problem is Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics. The vast majority of early contributors are related to these three projects. I did consider mentioning it at the time, but the point of the RfC was to see the community's point of view. David Eppstein's comment, whilst acting as a lighting rod, is a very fair comment - we don't want a lynching here and if Kiefer feels more willing to discuss the issues knowing that a lynching isn't the purpose, then I think it will be a positive outcome.

Having said that, Kiefer's latest response doesn't fill me with confidence. I understand he's travelling for a week, so perhaps he'll have more time to address the concerns after that period... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I too have noticed that it was mostly editors from those two projects who comment under the view: "I have no opinion on the political disputes described here, but Wolfowitz has performed very valuable service to the encyclopedia bringing mathematical articles [...]". Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism was not notified however, even though a large part of the dispute was on the pages Socialist Party USA. So it does appear that WP:CANVASSing rules were deliberately bent or ignored by KW. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would not consider it canvassing to put a neutral notice there, if editors from that project were involved. On another note, I have removed the outrageous sentence from his last comment - I know he probably thought it was funny, but it doesn't meet any definition of humorous in these circumstances. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A few responses. First, I should be informed of discussions like this. Second, some of this discussion would be better at the RfC or its talk page.

Third, I do not "obsess about ages", but I am concerned about minors as administrators, and I consistently take the most paternalistic/responsible (your choice) position in discussions about vulnerable persons. Tough that some dislike this position.

Fourth, the articles related to American socialism were in terrible states when I found them, although they had been worse 5 years ago, and so the relevant projects were immediately suspect as dysfunctional/nonfunctional. Those projects have been useless when I have asked for help related to e.g. Tom Kahn; our brothers and sisters at the LGBT project provided useful feedback for it. I have no reason to expect that an RfC notice at the non--high-functional projects would generate feedback, let alone competent feedback.

Finally, even here, at an ArbCom member's talk page, and at an RfC, "Have mörser, will travel" violates WP:AGF with impunity. At least, he has been ignored (at the RfC 07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that this discussion would be better at the RfC talkpage. I can move the whole shebang over there if you wish. As to why you weren't informed of the discussion, I suggest you ask Geometry Guy, as he is the one asking the questions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That is very disingenuous. I did not start this thread, nor am I responsible for the portion of it questioning KW's good faith and accusing him of canvassing. Geometry guy 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec, reply to KW) Quite. And let me add a couple of observations of my own.

• It is absurd to refer to KW placing a neutral note on WikiProjects where he as contributed as a WP:CANVASS violation. A neutrally-worded notice to a non-partisan audience is not canvassing. If RfC/U is for dispute resolution, not dispute escalation, then inviting comments from other editors familiar with the user's editing should be helpful, not harmful.
• It is an offensive AGF violation to state "Apparently, Kiefer.Wolfowitz has earned the respect of other editors in non-controversial areas, and thought to capitalize on that in this dispute". Is this dispute resolution or dispute escalation?
• "The trouble is that he doesn't fall out with the Maths people". The trouble??!! I'm aghast at the attitude: "okay, so lets try and find some people he does fall out with"! Dispute resolution, or escalation?
• Members of the maths WikiProject have generally responded very responsibly to the notification, not commenting beyond their experience, and in one case providing a rather critical view of KW which KW himself has acknowledged as fair and may learn from. That's dispute resolution. Geometry guy 23:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "It is an offensive AGF violation to state 'Apparently, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has earned the respect of other editors in non-controversial areas, and thought to capitalize on that in this dispute'". WP:CANVASS also says The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions. Clearly asking only groups who have a good opinion of his work is a breach of that. User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz replied: The articles related to American socialism were in terrible states when I found them, although they had been worse 5 years ago, and so the relevant projects were immediately suspect as dysfunctional/nonfunctional. Those projects have been useless when I have asked for help related to e.g. Tom Kahn; in contrast, our brothers and sisters at the LGBT project provided useful feedback for it." ¶ The articles on cannon (FA!) and gunpowder promoted various WP:FRINGE theories before I edited them in late 2011, and still need some work in that respect. Does that make WP:MILHIST worthless and dysfunctional? Consequently, should I never ask for their opinion on anything? I suppose I could fancy myself as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Gunpowder of one, and thus supremely entitled to scoff at everyone else, just like KW could be the overlord of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Socialism in the USA. His seemingly unmatched expertise entitles him to canvass only experts in Mathematics/Economics/Statistics whenever he has a dispute surrounding his editing of a political party article. ¶ Anyway, after having read WP:DIVA, I scoff at any further involvement of myself in this dispute "resolution"; clearly it won't produce any desirable changes in behavior, but only result in further in-group solidarity and out-group resentment. [Feel free to copy this to the RfC talk page]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Moerser, writing like this only reduces your credibility. You should try to find counter-examples to statements before pressing the submit button, particularly when you willfully violate WP:AGF despite complaints.

For example, in the last days, one of the few articles I contributed to was Socialist Party of America, where I suggested that the editor I reverted please contact User:Orange Mike, who is an honest and knowledgeable person who strongly disliked ("I was not impressed") my initial edits on SDUSA. (I have recommended that people contact Orange Mike before this RfC/U.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

To all - I really think that this conversation should be on the talkpage of the RfC. Should I move it over? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong view. The canvassing part, at least, could usefully be copied over. Geometry guy 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• I think that it should be moved to the talk page of the RfC. However, "Have Moeser, Will Travel" should consider deleting remarks that can be viewed as non-constructive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm horribly busy today, so I doubt I'll be able comment much anywhere, but I wanted to say that I agree that it should be moved to the RfC talk page - as it is a discussion of the RfC, and anyone participating should also be aware. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help?

• Hi Elen, thanks for the speedy on File:P15ADestroyer.JPG, Also, would you mind giving us a hand at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Result was unexpected. I've blocked the other Chanakyathegreat sock, but I don't know who the other guy is...other than fishy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Like a fishpuppet? Thanks again, that made my day. :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm... Wow~! More dead chickens been dug up... time to block them all~? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 23:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock again?

• Shifty333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elen, we have another highly possible case on WP:ANI#User:Shifty333 and User talk:Baseball Bugs#Pagemove dispute, your CU skills to provide an X-ray vision will surely be very useful in this case. Thanks and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like AGK got it while I was at lunch. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ref Desk Removal

User:Medeis has removed one of your comments on the reference desk [24]. It is being discussed on the talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Alteration in the article Jagjit Singh without reference

User User_talk:Simon5761 is persistently trying to change the "Years Active" part from 1966 to 1961 since yesterday without putting any citation. I made several reverts of this attempts and requested him not to change it until he provides any reference User_talk:Simon5761#Please Provide References before changing the "Years Active" part of the article Jagjit Singh - but he is unwilling to listen. Please do something to convince him - if you can. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

1966 isn't sourced either. The article says he came to Mumbai in 1961 to start a career in the music business, spent his first few years singing jingles, then got a job singing in a film Dharati Na Chhoru for which no date is given. On that basis, I'd say he was active in the music business from 1961 and the other chap is right. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In the "Film scores" section of the article his first work is attributed to the film "Bahuroopi" (year 1966) anyway, when I wrote this section - that part "he came to Mumbai in 1961..." was not there. Based on that 1961 may be treated as his career starting year, but if there is any citation of any of his works done in 1961 or atleast the mention that he had come to Mumbai in 1961 that'd have been more conclusive. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah right, yes that does make a difference. What it really needs is more references generally. Hopefully a few more detailed write ups might appear in the wake of his recent death that give a reliable source for some of the information. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"This is a view..."

Elen, I respectfully disagree that "Does anyone else think that Kiefer.Wolfowitz's response is actually indictative of the problem - especially if one notes his comments on the talkpage. Perhaps those who would consider himself friends could try explaining... Users who endorse this summary:..." is a view or a summary appropriate for seeking endorsement from other users.

Up to the missing question mark, the first sentence is a question, asking for views, and doesn't explicitly state a view. The second sentence is inviting responses from those with different views, not endorsements. If you would like other editors to respond to and discuss the question you raise, I would ask you to refactor it as a thread on the RfC/U talk page.

Thanks, Geometry guy 18:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have rephrased to make it clear that it is a view. If people also want to comment on it on the talkpage, that is the correct thing to do. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done Elen. Now that was not so difficult, was it? Geometry guy 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it a maths thing...? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it is about clarity. Geometry guy 00:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to use very formal language sometimes at work. I try to avoid it on Wikipedia when speaking to people, but I did not intend to be unclear. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding diffs to your statement, but please note that in your enthusiasm you have used one diff three times, and another diff twice. The first diff (used twice) only supports the mention of "weird, multi-syllable names", not the mocking of them. The second diff links only to an edit window, which was presumably not your intention. Geometry guy 12:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, festina lente. More haste, less speed as they say - also if being handy with the Mediawiki interface was a requirement, I'd never have been allowed in. Too many tabs open at once, I dare say - when I get a moment, I'll have a go at fixing it, but I only have about 15 minutes between now and midnight. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no rush. Enjoy your evening, Geometry guy 15:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— --Cailil ^talk 02:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

just a ping for another mail--Cailil ^talk 22:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in!

On the men's rights talk page and making a great point to that IP about sources! Your explanation was great! SarahStierch (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

• News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

• In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

• WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

• Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

• Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

• Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute opened by Hermiod against Kgorman-ucb about men's rights

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Men's Rights". Thank you. --SarahStierch (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Men's Rights

For the record, I do not think this discussion was all about me but it did stem from a previous requestion for mediation that I started and did result in me being linked to individuals who had threatened other Wikipedia users.Hermiod (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that some loose statements suggested a link, as the lot carrying on like that are all new or IP editors and most seem connected to one organisation/set of organisations. At the same time, you are coming across as if every single statement is directed at you, and it definitely isn't. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies...

There was more I should have perhaps repeatedly reiterated in my posts to Wiqi55, but I'd said it numerous times before on the article's talk page and on AN/I. Penom made it very clear (POV pushing and improperly using sources) why he was removing the content. Perhaps didn't reiterate that clearly enough in my later posts to Wiqi55? I thought I had when I indicated I thought his (Wiqi55's) complaints about the edit summaries, based on lengthy talk page discussions on the matters, indicated it was a content/POV/source mischaracterization issue. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you used the DR noticeboard format on ANI. At ANI it is better to come in with a simple, short post with diffs, because ANI is intended solely for incidents requiring some kind of admin action. So "there's an edit war going on between Foo and Bar" is fine (although it belongs at the edit warring board), but your lengthy expose suffered from tl:dr unfortunately, and I just picked up on one bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, yeah, I do have a problem with that. :-( Working on it... trying to. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hermiod WP:POINT

Hermiod (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Hermiod's behaviour is becoming untenable at the ANi thread[25] as well as at the talk:Men's rights page[26]. Constant spurious accusations of bad faith[27][28][29], ad hominem remarks & assumptions of bad faith[30][31][32][33][34], off topic commentry[35][36], and weak appeals to WP:IAR[37][38], in what is now becoming an increasingly tendentious cycle of WP:IDONTLIKEIT remarks[39][40][41] and a refusal to hear the warnings that have been given (see multiple balnkings by user of their talk page[42][43][44]). It's worth noting also that Hermiod was canvassed about this by Jayhammers[45]. BTW all diffs here of Hermiod's behaviour (other than his talk space blanking) are no older than 36 hours (olderst posted here 20:47 Oct 18 2011(UTC))--Cailil ^talk 08:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This recent edit by Hermiod on Talk:Men's rights is also not helpful. [46] Nor was this bizarre request. [47] Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. If the article probation proposal comes off, he should be considerably reigned in, but I'm not convinced there is enough egregiously blockable material there yet, given the fuss it will cause in some quarters. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Romance Films

As you probably already know I added LGBT information to the romance films article. I have edited and resubmitted my information and hope you will look at my attempt at an improvemenet. You are right that not all LGBT films are romance and I clarified that in the article now. Thank you for contributing so much to wikipedia.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You must have had a problem with the interface. What's in the article now isn't even in English - it seems to have scrambled all the words. And it still doesn't belong under the heading Subgenre - it isn't a subgenre of Romance films, romance films are a subgenre of LGBT films. Let me see what I can do. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this do the trick [48] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a huge difference between Jewish, Black and other ethnic films as these minorities do not deal with the concept of who one loves. I tried to rephrase what I put in to state that not all LGBT films are romance but as of now I still think that the article has a really heavy heterosexist bias and am trying to change that. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to explain it better. Many (and perhaps most) LGBT films deal with romance. There are many LGBT romance films. This is because the LGBT culture is so interconnected with who one is attracted to. Black films and Jewish films are about the skin color and culture of the characters and I would say there are far fewer Black and Jewish films about romance than LGBT films about romance.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. I agree that the article needs to represent better that there are lesbian, gay & etc romances as well, but shoehorning that line in subgenres is not the way to do it. Write a paragraph about it - you can include if you like such things as the controversy about lesbian romance in particular being taken up into mainstream Hollywood, but using straight actresses (The Guardian), and how unusual it is for a homosexual love story to successfully cross over (The Independent). These two sources took me a couple of minutes to find, so I'm sure there are more on the subject. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This individual (blocked indefinitely for a bizarre legal threat at the AN/I board that was later retracted, sort of) contacted my talk page for their first edit after nearly two weeks of not editing to "complain" that I wasn't being sensitive to possible "gender-neutral" individuals by using the wrong pronouns, when all I had ever done was point out (a while ago) the hypocrisy of them making such a claim when they self-identified as being "Unfortunately Male :(" on their own userpage. I'm pretty sure I know what the angle is here, and I will certainly be taking an interest in this editor's continued activities after my unwarranted lecture, as well as their past and continued problems editing in a non-disruptive manner. Doc talk 04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This user has also been confirmed through CheckUser to have operated a sock account; despite the CU results, they have always denied it (WP:LITTLEBROTHER, essentially) and have even attempted to hide it. Why there is not even a short block for sockpuppetry in the block log is odd, but... meh. Doc talk 05:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done my best to explain what would actually be an encyclopaedic addition to the article, because if they just keep adding that random broken english, all they will end up is blocked. Thanks for the heads-up about the sock - no idea why they didn't get a short block at that time, but something to keep an eye out for perhaps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A minor addition to a piece of text you endorsed

Sorry to bother you. I added a rather important item to a piece of text that you had previously endorsed. (Important to me because I felt this was the biggest problem of them all - I should have added it way earlier.) Specifically, I made this change. I assumed you would have no disagreement with that addition, but for form's sake I felt I should inform you of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem with addition--Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

seen it and replied--Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

SPI

I have reverted this edit here because it doesn't seem to explain what you were trying to do. You might be looking for {{declined}} -->  Declined. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi DQ. No, in fact I was looking for the inconclusive template. This guy edits from so many locations and machines that you can't say for definite that the other editor isn't him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be {{inconclusive}} -->  Inconclusive. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 17:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, I had a brain fart, couldn't think of the word and kept previewing weird combos of not clear to try and remember what it was. Then I accidentally hit save.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to be safe

User:Racepacket is under a one-year ArbCom ban. Before the ban was enacted (but related to the dispute), I'd promised to start an RFC on GA-related advice pages and listen to his perspective. I've assumed that since bans don't extend to the user's own talk page (except in case of talk page abuse), it would be okay for me to copy his comments over to the RFC, but I wanted to make sure that I wouldn't be inadvertently getting him into trouble before I did so. My request for his view is at User talk:Racepacket#RFC_started; the RFC is at WT:WPGA. Is it okay for me to copy over or link to his reply? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If he's banned, he can't edit at all, even his talkpage. Talkpages of banned editors are usually locked - see for example User:Tenmei. I think it was not always thus, but we had a small spate of banned editors running campaigns from their talkpages. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of my automatic mea culpa for not reading the most recent version of the policy before posting my invitation there, I went and looked it up. Are you sure that's the actual policy? The closest WP:BAN comes to that is to say that "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page" (emphasis mine). Do we need to see about amending the policy, or is this something that you think ought to be handled case-by-case? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

rezabot

Hi, i stoped for interwiki for templates.please unblock it because it doing another jobs as global bot. also i used standard code last edition (yesterday update). Reza1615 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.-- DQ (t) (e) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

From me too. –xeno^talk 16:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete my page?

Who in the name are you Elen of the Roads? I researched the results of this antivirus on every single website and I tested it myself. I am a rater at Pc mag, cnet, and Pc world. I actually calculated the percentage of threats used and made. I averaged them out with other scores and compared mine with the editor. Unlike you, I don't put links that lead to this same page and I can hack and create programs of lots of things I want. My IQ is 157. I can give you the page to prove it. I did the reviewing myself and created the image from the actual interface itself. These actual antiviruses blocked and removed like I wrote. I think that you unfairly removed my page for speedy Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almoria (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

See my notes on your talkpage. You should be able to create the article if you follow the instructions I've given you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, this was clearly not spam, not G11, an the way to deal with OR is not to summarily delete the whole article. I haven't checked the other article by the same editor that was deleted, but it appears to be on a similar subject. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

I have restored the earlier version of this article. Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wenatex Australia

Hello Elen. Please, take a look at the initial revision of the proposed article. You can also check deleted contributions and block log of the creator, user Wenatex Australia (talk · contribs). I don't think they are here to build an encyclopedia. I delete promotional articles/block spam accounts on daily basis and I have a strange feeling that spamming is a more and more popular discipline (I hope I'm not paranoid or too pedantic :)). Usually I check their contributions and nominate for deletion any advert, as I did in this case. But I don't think the page could seriously damage Wikipedia. Btw, not only "attack pages and similar bad faith submissions" can be speedily deleted. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

HI. I've no trouble speedying it, it's just that I didn't think you guys used speedy much. Retag it and I'll blitz it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My intent is not to advertise but rather to place links to my blog and to published articles already online. I've seen such archives on Wilipaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckmorse (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 8cb883b06710a8348ec8d8116d99fd14

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Diffs, lack of

You said (somewhere that I've agreed not to post) "I do wish you'd learn to use diffs and stop copying everyone's comments including signatures all around the wiki".

I do wish he'd learn not to misrepresent people when doing so, as well! He's pasted almost exactly the same thing into a more-than-a-month-old discussion on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and I've stated my concerns about it there (second and third paragraphs). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen, I've seen. I think his only achievement here is to piss Sandy off. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not so hard: been there, got the T-shirt. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleading the fifth :) Oh wait, I'm in England. We lost the right to remain silent. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

I have not wasted more time with the diffs. You or anybody can reformat my quotations as diffs, with my blessings. Please remember that I am writing against 3-4 editors (including 2 editors who spent months writing the RfC).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It may help if you remember that you're not writing against anyone... Worm^TT · (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

... and that the reason the start of the RfC/U was delayed for months, was that you, Kiefer, requested demanded such a delay!

If you refuse to heed polite requests not to copy-paste other people's signatures haphazardly all over Wikipedia, in a potentially misleading way, then I suggest that rather than expecting other editors to clean up after you by turning your pasta into diffs, they should be permitted to just remove the potentially misleading material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this is not the only slightly unusual aspect of KW's way of doing things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock of Mudrecords2011

Doesn't look like he's bothering with a username change. Just more edits to his COI article. Sigh. Eeekster (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The block button is always available. The other guy I unblocked at the same time managed to file a name change request the same day. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sun State Roller Girls

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at [[User talk:Notjackbrown (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)|User talk:Notjackbrown (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The situation with regards to Δ

Elen, I approach you with this as an interested party in the recent WP:AN/I thread regarding Δ and as a member of ArbCom. I am seeking your advice as such. If you would prefer to keep your responses to e-mail, you may e-mail me directly.

As you're aware, Δ was blocked for supposedly conducting pattern edits. The edits of the type in question had been reviewed a month earlier and not been found to be a pattern ⁽¹⁾. Another admin ⁽²⁾ has claimed the intent of the restrictions were to get Δ out of maintenance tasks, and get him to create articles and/or create content. An editor ⁽³⁾ has raised issue that the requests being made at WP:VPR on Δ's behalf (and approved by him) are in bad faith, pointy, and gamey. That's a lose-lose situation; if the requests aren't made, he's in violation, if the requests are made it's in bad faith. Anything Δ does is now being viewed as a pattern, with no time frame limitation on the definition of pattern, no clarification on the massive grey area of what "pattern" means. To top this all off, and arguably the most problematic of all this is that there is now sufficient opposition in the form of blanket opposition to all of the current 11 proposals being made that none of them will gain consensus. There are another 24 types of edits for which I'm intending on making requests at WP:VPR on Δ's behalf. It won't matter. The effect of this is that Δ is no longer permitted to edit in mainspace. This is not what was written into his sanctions. ArbCom has not produced any such sanction against him. Yet, that is now the de facto situation. Why? Because a vocal enough group has turned the proposals into a voting fest (which it never should have been in the first place) and prevented any of the proposals from moving forward.

This situation is untenable.

I believe it is time for ArbCom to step in. The community has proven itself singularly incapable of managing this fracas. At every occasion that concerns arise regarding Δ, it descends into mayhem. There is no chance for productive discourse to bring about positive, pro-wiki solutions. The community has lost the ability to dispassionately assess any issue regarding Δ.

Δ has done an enormous amount of positive work here. I do not for a moment discount that some of his work has created serious problems here. But, all of those problems have been taken into account across a dizzying array of threads. The shakeout of it all is that Δ is still allowed to edit here. The community has not banned him from the site, though they are certainly capable of doing so as the recent TreasuryTag fracas shows. Given that, he has the privilege of editing here, within his restrictions, and such privilege has not been revoked. Yet, because the community is singularly incapable of discussing this topic now, there is a de facto ban on his editing (at least in mainspace), as the response to the requests at WP:VPR show.

I am uncertain as to what to do. People involved in this, including myself, tend to be passionate in their arguments. I think it would be best if there was a group of people, say six to eight, who were a committee charged with approving tasks Δ can do. Unfortunately, I think such people would need to have no prior involvement. Finding such a group of people would be difficult. But, I have no better ideas. I'm at a loss as to what to do. The "easy" solution is to simply ban Δ from the site. That would require the least effort. But, it's the wrong choice, and would set a standard that if enough people get mad at someone, it doesn't matter if that someone is right or not, the people who get mad will win. That's ochlocracy, and it's not what Wikipedia is about.

I do think it needs to be made clear, somewhere, that Δ does have the privilege of editing, and barring specific sanction against him for a specific type of edit (such as ArbCom's June sanction regarding NFCC enforcement), he can edit. But, the wording of his editing restrictions ⁽⁴⁾ is such that if there's an opposition, to anything he does, he has to get consensus to do it. I think that needs to be inverted; there needs to be consensus to stop him from doing it. That at least would place a higher burden on the ochlocracy to prove their stance.

I'm begging for help here. Any advice on how to proceed would be most welcome. As is, the situation has no hope of resolving. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

1: I'm not calling the blocking admin's actions in question here. I'm wishing to highlight the disagreement as to what constitutes a pattern.
2: It doesn't matter who the admin is, but if you need it I can provide diffs
3: Again, it doesn't matter who but I can provide diffs.
4: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community

• I'm at work at the moment. Let me get back to you this evening when I get home. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time and consideration. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• After some more thought about this, I think a key issue in all of this is that the controversy itself has become a serious problem. It has become impossible for there to be any productive path by which Δ can edit. The controversy, which has existed for years now, is unstoppable. Yes, Δ has had a hand in that controversy. But, with the existence of the controversy and it being so unsolvable by the community, there is no possible path by which Δ can prove he has rehabilitated himself. This last block is proof positive of that. He was told it wasn't a pattern, and a month later blocked for it being a pattern. The resulting controversy, which Δ has said almost nothing about, has generated more than 20,000 words of debate, more than 60 pages of controversy. The situation has become one where it is like a person walking into a room of a hundred Wikipedians and saying "Delta" and the whole room turning into pandemonium, whether Δ did anything or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• A more microcosmal demonstration of this is here. Δ did not start that thread, it wasn't initiated by something he did, and he hasn't contributed to it. Yet, the outcome of it in less than 24 hours is a slew of proposals across 14 editors and a picture so muddy as to be completely useless in moving in ANY direction, much less a positive one. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

OK, don't take this hard. I don't know the chap, that's the reason for these questions. You may prefer to reply by email to the first one.

• Does he have some kind of learning disability that causes him to have all these problems -

- obsessed with minutia - unable to interact well with other people - must carry out repetitive activities. I only ask because if he does, it would shut out a whole set of suggestions

• Does he edit without scripts as well as with them? I thought he was a member of Milhist at one point.

• What does he do/what has he done in the past that has made a significant contribution to the project. There must be significant contribution - people presumably aren't just supporting him for sentimental reasons.

It strikes me that the suggestions were bound to fail because they look like make-work for someone who is obsessed with editing but can't do anything useful. I don't think you meant to give that impression, so we need to look at a larger picture of how he can contribute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you like these stroopwafels

Hi Elen - I thought you might appreciate a tasty snack and a break. It seems as if you have been a bit wiki-stressed/jumpy lately. I find it easy to lose a sense of perspective if I get too wrapped up in things on Wikipedia and always come back refreshed after a break! Enjoy... Geometry guy 21:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the stroopwaffles. The virtual ones are so great because they are of course sugar free. Things are stressed in real life at the moment - I work for an English local authority, and we are shedding about 1/3 of our staff, and there's lots of stuff around that, and last week was a bit of a nightmare. I edit Wikipedia to get away from that, but if you think it's spilling over, perhaps I ought to back off a bit and stick to rescuing genuine articles from the clutches of new page patrollers who don't understand what A7 factually says.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand well both real life stress, and editing Wikipedia to get away from it ("been there, done that", as they say!). Things are a bit rough in the UK public sector at the moment, aren't they? My advice for maximum relaxation would be to concentrate more editing time in areas that make you feel comfortable and good. Then the occasional edits you make in more stressful environments will be more positive, more valuable, and more valued. On Wikipedia misunderstandings and miscommunications can arise and escalate much more easily than IRL, but that also means that they can sometimes be easier to resolve; the opportunity to resolve disagreements and misundestandings is something I find very rewarding about contributing here. Geometry guy 22:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elen! I struck through the evil paragraph on Sandy's page. I am sorry to read that you have had to be busy with such a difficult task, these last weeks. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated - that's very generous of you. Let's try for a cease fire - I don't think I'm making a positive contribution to the situation at the moment, so if I withdraw from the fray, would you just let me drop off the radar for a few days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elen,

(ec)

Of course. We both could use a breather. :)

I am sorry for over-reacting and writing a hurtful paragraph. Had neither you nor Malleus replied, then I should have removed it.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

• From the editors: A call for contributors

• Opinion essay: There is a deadline

• Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

• In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical

• WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case

• Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

re: Dualus

The statistics are not that interesting to me, because I honestly can't see why domestic violence is even an issue when it comes to roller derby as it is a topic that really isn't covered by the sources. (Issues for women's sport tend to be really different than men's sport.) I can't even figure out where they got the idea that there is a connection. I attended the bout mentioned here. (And a number of other bouts featuring the Canberra Roller Derby League.) There wasn't any glorification of violence. People cheered/laughed when skaters fell down. The largest cheers were not for hard hits, but rather for good skating and good strategy when jammers managed to get around the pack. That has been a consistent feature of all matches I've seen. (Maybe this is a regional issue?) And yeah. I'm completely lost as to what the heck is going on with the topic that we're even taking it there. There just isn't the literature in the sport about this topic to even begin to make these connections. *babbles* The whole thing feels completely out of left field. (But I look at sport as a sport historian, sport sociologist and sport marketer.) Outside of wanting to re-iterate that there are no connections to porn and the model doesn't fit based on what appear to be incorrect, non-source supported beliefs, don't want to deal with it. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all of that. I'm sure there are a good number of chaps that like to look at female athletes, and a hopefully much smaller subset turned on by real or imagined violence, but certainly from the small amount I know about it in the UK, that's not actually connected to the sport in any way [49] and [50] for instance. His statement about most domestic violence being initiated by women comes from an unpleasant subset of the "men's rights" movement that has been trolling here for the past couple of weeks, and made me instantly suspicious I'm afraid. And his statement about pornography and abuse warrants watching closely - it is a nasty myth put about in some quarters that child pornography is a victimless crime.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

They mentioned the gendergap list somewhere, so I thought maybe it came from there and it was a good faith effort to improve the article. (And if we have men's rights supporters on the list, I feel even ickier.) I know that domestic violence is committed by women, but there isn't the same culture of violence from sport where research connects the two things together. I just wasn't willing to read the pornography comment because there is no connection in anything I've read. I was pulling out those sources last night on women in sport from both women's perspectives and main stream sport management texts and it just isn't there. --LauraHale (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock of Sachinsuroshe

I see that at User talk:Sachinsuroshe you evidently intended to unblock, but didn't. I have unblocked for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. That's the second time I've done that in two days. More haste, less speed and all that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Some follow up questions.

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

Hopefully I'm doing this right. Adelmang (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your guidance is much appreciated. Thanks again! Adelmang (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Walid Phares

Hello, please see my response

=)

Replied at User talk:50.12.23.184 --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Walid Phares

hello, please see my response while i am struggling to understand the policy and may need to re-do certain edits that i just re-tried due to urgency of the situation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.23.184 (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As requested multiple times to all of your IP identities, PLEASE POST ON THE TALKPAGE OF THE ARTICLE. If you edit the article again without doing so, it is likely that the article will be protected to prevent amendment by IPs. Here are a few other points:-

• If I have a source that says "Foo was arrested for burglary" and you have a source that says "Foo was arrested for burglary but the charges were later dropped", what you must NOT do is just alter the text I have put into the article and sourced to my source, to say that the charges were later dropped. This is because you would then be sourcing the information to a reference that does not say that. There are a number of things you can do, but you will need to be prepared to DISCUSS THEM AT Talk:Walid Phares.
• You can remove my edit entirely, and replace it with one that says "Foo was arrested but the charges were dropped" and source it to your source - on the grounds that this is more complete information.
• You can add "The charges were later dropped" after my edit saying he was arrested, and source that to your source.

• You cannot just throw references into the article in the way that you keep doing. I have said this several times now, so please take some notice. You can discuss on the talkpage whether a reference is suitable.
• In the article, as it is a biography of a living person and covered by our policy at WP:BLP, you must use the references to source text. You wrote a lot of text, please take the time to actually read WP:CITE to see how to make inline citations to your references in the text that you wrote. As long as you didn't copy and paste the long piece of text from a copyright source, you can add it as long as you include inline citations.

• If you want to challenge whether someone else's source is sound, you must do it ON THE TALKPAGE - for example, if you don't think it is a valid news source. You can't just keep changing the article in the way that you have been. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for unblocking me. sorry for any trouble it caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRcappel (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Remember to sign your name on talkpages with ~~~~, always cite your sources in articles, and you'll be fine. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

isolte avila im very confused . and want to withdraw from wikipedia ..im obviously not able to do it and ita hrming my mental health

Dear elen i really dont know how to use wikipedia . I have tried and spent quite a lot of time on it . I am making a request to delete my user profile and everything associated with it . Best of luck withit . Its not accsible to me.

isolte avila sdc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.60.165 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you the same person who created the Signdance theatre account? And are you really Isolte Avila. I would like to help, but I need the answer to these questions. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Davis100

It seems as though Davis100 has continued his destructive ways on the Romeo discography page. Personally I feel he deserves a ban, but can you at least lock the page to prevent further vandalism from him? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who appears to be the vandal here. I have checked a fair bit of the info that Davis100 wants to add, and it is already in the album articles. I do not understand why you keep trying to delete it, but if you continue you are likely to get blocked again. This is a content dispute - stop calling him a vandal, because he isn't, and put something on the talk page to explain why you think there is something wrong with the information he is adding, because I can't see the problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay Ellen, he keeps adding false RIAA certifications and sales (Lil Romeo at 2x platinum, Game Time at 2x platinum and Romeoland at gold) despite the fact that only his first album has a certification according to the RIAA website (Gold). He's also added false chart positions to God's Gift and Lottery despite the fact neither ever charted. Is that good enough? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that. He's going through the album articles and altering them to match. Not good. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[51] is the problem. It contains some of the duff information. But the RIAA certs are based on their own database, so definitely make a WP:RS. You'll see the consequence on his talkpage - keep an eye on it, as you may need to explain to another administrator at some point. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

... and their unblock declined, and the entire WP:NPA against you removed in favour of the most simple "indef" template. Talkpage also locked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not an edifying spectacle. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Query re: WP:3

Hi, I see that you are active are the moment. I've responded to a point at Talk:List_of_Ezhavas#Sources.2C_BLP_.26_notability and wonder if you could advise whether the third opinion process would be a valid route. No need to weigh in on the discussion itself, but you are an admin & have had very few dealings with me & so hopefully might at least be able to clarify whether my suggestion of WP:3 is a viable option - it is mostly IPs & so difficult to determine the "multiple editors" situation that 3O refers to. The points raised are also in previous threads on that page, but with less detail. The list itself is under semi-PP for the next 4 days.

Sorry to bother you like this but I am trying to avoid recourse to what are often perceived to be the "usual suspects" by IP editors in this particular area of WP. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How to respond to and resolve smear campaigns?

Hello. I found to my surprise that I am being smeared by the same two individuals across Wikipedia. They are leaving unfounded and preposterous allegations to editors and basically clogging up the system. I have asked them to stop. They are not. How do I resolve this? --Kanovski (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me some more information. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The smear has been solved, and I guess it was okay now. DeshintaChandra (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see what raised both your concern and Kanovski's concern, and have added a note on the article talkpage. I am glad it is resolved - I don't think there was bad faith involved. In future, you should find attention to WP:V and WP:UNDUE will resolve matters of this kind.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope this thing won't happen again. I have asked both of them (BabbaQ and Kanovski) to stop discussing about this, so the problem will not getting weirder. DeshintaChandra (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elen of the Roads! First I'd like to thank you for your very prompt response. As to the issue itself, I see that you've read up on some of it and given constructive remarks. By "some of it" I mean that a lot of relevant information has been removed from several pages. This issue was/is not a content dispute, per se, but a matter of hounding and deterrence from editing. When I opened a discussion about an article, I did not receive a reply on the article's talk page. Rather than answering my request for comments and discussing the question of possible libel, one user "BabbaQ" went straight to an administrator with serious allegations about me. When the admin ("Alexandria") replied that these accusations were unfounded, the user continued to try to create a faction against me, by making up every possible accusation to other admins and volunteer editors. The same user ("BabbaQ") also tried to coerce and lobbied the user "Desintachandra" with the words: "I hope you are with me on that." When I caught on to the slander that was going on unbeknownst to me, and confronted the faction about it, they came clean that the preposterous allegations had been proved unwarranted.

I was brought up with strong values about gossip, defamation and bullying. While anyone can exhibit moments of logical fallacies, or have trouble expressing themselves, I obviously get upset about being falsely accused on extremely thin grounds. I have now received one apology, not from "BabbaQ" but from user "Desintachandra" who have assured me that the hounding stops now. Hopefully, from now on I can go back to focusing on the actual article and editorial improvement, without further libel behind my back. Thank you for your time. PS: I observed that you've made some grammar remarks and style suggestions which I just could glance at for now. I may reply (if called for) when I am done with the two books and 662 pages that just landed on my table for copy editing and submission within four days. Best regards. --Kanovski (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid using legal terms such as slander and libel that only have meaning in the context of a potential legal action. I get it that you didn't like the speculation by the two other editors, but none of it amounted to slander or libel. Please read WP:NLT - our policy on legal threats. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Tenerife Article Incident

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your sage cautions regarding my recent misunderstanding with another Wiki editor. There really wasn’t any conflict, just a simple misunderstanding. In short, he thought (for reasons I now understand) that he was dealing with a jerk, when it fact he was dealing with a tech klutz! Although I have acquired an impressive amount of knowledge over the years to contribute to Wiki, I’m afraid like many folks of my generation my computer skills are not up to those of most younger people.

In regard to the libel issue, I must confess I wasn’t thinking in terms of another editor (person). I don’t even know who originally had inserted “ATC error” as a cause in the info box. I guess I just assumed that he or she had followed the Dutch investigators’ lead. I was really thinking of protecting the Wikipedia Foundation from a potential lawsuit. You must understand that “ATC” in this context refers to exactly two individuals. Although I might agree that there is little chance that these two men would read the article (if still alive) and that they (or their estates) would file suit, I hope that you and all would agree that we do not want Wiki to engage in such even if it could be done with impunity. Accusing two individuals of having contributed to the deaths of over five hundred people by way of negligence is, after all, a terrible accusation to make without substantial evidence in support.

Thanks again for the advice which I shall endeavor to follow closely in the future.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. If being good at markup was a requirement, they'd never have let me in. And N419 is a very reasonable editor, so I'm glad you guys managed to work out the problem so quickly.The safest thing, should you ever have a situation like that again, is to refer to WP:BLP - our policy on handling information about living persons. Saying that the report had been discredited/overturned and was a potential BLP issue - because as you say it does specifically refer just to these two people - would work just as well, and not cause any raised eyebrows. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

coffin and keys

Hello my name is LazarusCK, you deleted my article on Coffin and Keys. I would like to know why you deleted this article? I have to agree with what this person above has stated. Thank you. LazarusCK (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you find me a single newspaper or magazine article, internet article, or other secondary source about this organization. Any ex-brethren that cite it as an influence. Any failed ex-brethren that made scurrilous allegations even. Post here. If you find something, I'll put the article in your userspace to edit further. If not, go write about some species of fish, because it's got more chance of being notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look on the page that you deleted there were a couple links that talk about Coffin and Keys if that is not good enough I have some more. This link is from the University of Nevada, Reno Knowledge Center. It is a whole page talking about coffin and keys and it has archival evidence that we exist. http://knowledgecenter.unr.edu/digital_collections/exhibits/university_history/student_life/coffin_and_keys.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazarusCK (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CLUB. I have no problem believing this organisation exists. However, I do not believe it is in any way notable, and a piece about a University of Nevada club on the University of Nevada website does nothing to dispel that view. Are any of your sources not connected with the club or the University? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have to ask the same about a lot of the organizations listed on this page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_secret_societies_in_North_America". There are only about 3 or 4 of them that are notable. The rest are just like my organization that only are known on their campus and are only doing things on their campuses. I would really have to argue that my page should not be deleted if their pages are not. We have a membership that effects all of Nevada. We are a secret society, with notable members and have had an effect in the great state of Nevada. So please can you put my page back up on wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazarusCK (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Do feel free to add Coffin and Keys to that article. I didn't know it existed, or I'd have suggested it earlier. You'll note that most of the societies mentioned don't have articles of their own, they don't need to be individually notable, as the overall topic (secret societies in US universities) is notable. If you need the text of your article to reuse, I can email it to you or put it in your userspace. You can then create Coffin and Keys as a redirect to that section of Collegiate secret societies in North America. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can please put the original content in my userspace that would be greatly appreciated and I will also redirect it as a section of Collegiate secret societies in North America. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazarusCK (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Prevent IP address to made vandalisms

Hi, could you help me to warn this person who used this IP address 59.28.66.229 to avoid him make vandalisms in the Miss Asia Pacific World 2011 article ?
He kept changing the placements, and I'm tired of undone the edits. Please help me with this, thanks. DeshintaChandra (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

• Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

• News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

• In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

• Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

• WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

• Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

• Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

• Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Andreas Pantazis is still at it

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pantazis Jr.. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Jack Paterno is likely a sock, of the recently inde-banned Bruce. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!

Hi Elen, i apologize if i disrespected you by not listening to you. I shouldn't have been impulsive. I should have just laid it off. I'm normally very polite and respectful to others even if they disagree with me, and under normal circumstances, don't lose it that easily. But that fellow's dishonest insinuations really got on my nerves. I was repulsed and found that very insulting. He did not misunderstand the edits. If he is an administrator, then he is definitely not stupid. He even agreed earlier that it was vandalism. In his response to you, he was just dishonestly defending that vandal's edits in order to discredit me. I would not have lost my temper still, except that what he said was really sick! He did it on purpose. He was subtly insulting me. I don't know what's wrong with that fellow. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Davejohnsan's talk page.
Message added 23:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An AN/I discussion looking for new input

Hi Elen, you seem to be one of the more active admins on AN/I now, and you also seem to possess knowledge on the Central European region. So if you feel like it, please chime in at the wonderfully titled "Thinly covered racist tendencies & long term tendentious editing by Arcillaroja" [52] which seems to have stalled. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

• In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

• WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

• Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

• Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

• Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on the noticeboard.

I retain my suspicious of the other two IPs that are within his "hemisphere" that you conveniently failed to have mentioned on the noticeboard in your comment, if you have any grievances about what I did, report my allegedly bad faith actions bout what I did elsewhere where it belongs instead of posting in a section about a past-block imposed due to an incorrect assumption that I was evading a block, I already made my statement on the relevant page, the material you are dragging up here does not belong there. Sheodred (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, at ANI the behaviour of all parties may be examined, and this is what happened. There was really no basis for that SPI - you could have investigated where the IPs are from yourself (every IP page carries a WHOIS template), and the UK based IP is arguing on a completely different basis to Yworo. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Real World: Miami BLP issue

The IP locator I use traced the IP to Bayonne, New Jersey. In double-checking it with a different locator, it indeed traces to Pittsburgh. In any event, I did not realize that I had checked the account creation block box; I thought I had left it blank. It seems that I was mistaken, so I apologize in that regard.

Given the nature of The Real World, and the fact that sexual activities are often given on the show, and the cast's sexual histories given in their bios (by themselves, after all, since this is the info they give when auditioning to be on the show), using an MTV bio page for that info was valid. Using your rationale, we'd have to delete A LOT of the material in the various Real World articles that is directly sourced to either the episodes in question or MTV's online episode summaries or bio pages. Now if a consensus of editors wants to remove it, then that's a legitimate procedure. But it was not the case when an anonymous editor removed it without attempting to contact me or anyone else at Wikipedia. In any event, engaging in grade school-level namecalling, as you did in your most recent message to me, is a clear violation of WP:Civility. Between that and your previous threat to me (neither behavior of which I've engaged in myself with you), you're not exactly following the site's policies. So please stop. Nightscream (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Action concerning PMAnderson for a likely breach of his ban

Hi Elen.

It is appropriate that I inform you of a section concerning PMAnderson that I have initiated at WP:ANI.

Best wishes!

Noetica^Tea? 11:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just been informed of PMA's ban [53] and only just finished reading the original ban "debate" and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#Pmanderson / Septentrionalis and MOS , just to let you know that take my hat of to you sticking to what you though was the right decision, despite some quite heavy intimidation. The whole sorry mess is another example that fits into my comments here (specifically bit on ANI not fit for purpose). -- PBS (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I do have a concern that te ban/topic ban/block review process does not work well at all at ANI, and this incident indicates some of the problems. What might be done to improve it is a subject for a much longer discussion. As for PMA, I did obviously put a topic ban notification on his talkpage at the time. I feel it is up to a topic banned user whether or not they put a more permanent note in place - I'm not about to make them carry a leper's bell if they don't want to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Further response, and soliciting further thoughts

Hi Elen. Thanks for your input at the Mkat AN/I. As indicated, I'm fully supportive of these inadvertent copyvios being deleted or stubified, as appropriate. You asked if I could provide you with a list. But as you surmised given the age, 5 years ago and 50-80,000 edits ago, I don't recall specific edits.

While you haven't requested this, I'm happy to volunteer to look at old articles I created, and delete or fix copyvios where I see them. Do you think that would be helpful? If so, do you think it would be best for me to limit my support to that, inasmuch as I imagine it may be better to let an independent third party mark articles as "checked and OK"?

BTW, I wouldn't want this issue (tertiary to the AN/I) to distract from the primary issues that prompted it, and from today's further developments.

Let me know your thoughts. I'm happy to volunteer to help out, however you thinkuld be best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be hugely helpful if you started to work on checking for/fixing copyvios. Most of the community including those who work at CCI (which I have done in the past) prefer this solution to having to destroy articles by ripping everything out. It is often the case that these edits are from years ago, when the rules were more relaxed, rather than a deliberate attempt to commit copyright violation, and the support of the originating editor in these cases is hugely helpful. I suspect your pleas not to have information deleted would be far better received generally if you are offering to fix the problems, regardles of Mkat's involvement or not. You should not tick off items yourself I think (check this out with Moonriddengirl), but could create a subpage where you recorded articles you had checked and what you found.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to do that. I'll leave word for Moon, as you suggest, and seek some "how to" advice from her.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion was a good one -- Moon had a thoughtful suggested tweak, that may be of interest to you, on how I might flag that I checked material.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Useful to know. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuts

Regarding this edit by you at ANI. The really odd thing about the "may contain nuts" warnings, & the laughter that ensues, is that ... peanuts are not nuts. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony1

Tony continues attempting to expand my ban to issues that have nothing to do with technical aspects of English, as with this edit. Please have a word with him, or let me know what your intention was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So now, as in this complaint, Tony holds that the difference between Romanian and English is a technical aspect of English. Please have a word with him; if this becomes a formal complaint, I expect to appeal the ban - on the grounds that it is being used for harassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet again. Please tell Tony to stay off my talkpage, unless he is required to post; I am tired of his inventing an interpretation of my ban with which only his faithfol followers agree; you will recall this discussion; Tony is again objecting to my answering a direct question, in this case one which has nothing to do with MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

• News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

• In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

• Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

• WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

• Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

More help needed

Thank you for protecting Collis Potter Huntington, unfortunately the anonymous editor is at it again, changing Mr. Huntington's birthday from October to April for no known reason. The major sources about Mr. Huntington say his birthday was in October. One webpage with no citations says April. I don't know why some English anonymous editor continues to make this change over and over. I have not reverted his latest edit so you can see it. Please help!! Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. See if it reoccurs - although I think it might as it appears to be 3 editors (either that or he moves around). Not sure how this can be a family member - all IPs geolocate to England. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

R.F. editing restriction

You had indicated you might be willing to enforce the editing restriction for Rich Farmbrough. Here is some information about edits he made yesterday that violate the restriction by making capitalization changes that AWB does not make automatically.

• [54] {{Infobox book}}; [55] {{Mergeto}}; [56] {{Infobox river}}; [57] {{Commons category}}; [58] {{Commonscat-inline}}; [59] {{Cleanup-linkrot}};

I verfied at that these are not built into AWB ([60]). The only redirects that AWB will bypass by default are listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. When it does bypass them, it will leave the first letter with the same capitalization. The reason that R.F.'s AWB makes these changes is that he has programmed it to do them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, but the AN discussion still seems to be ongoing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Take your time. I am not sure whether a waring wouldn't be enough, anyway, as a sort of closure to the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping

The AN discussion was archived a day or two ago to here. The outcome was that the editing restriction is still in place. Unfortunately, R.F. is continuing to violate it. When you have a chance, could you look at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Violation_of_edit_restriction? The violations are objective in the sense that they directly contradict the wording of the sanction. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the outcome was that consensus unanimously disfavoured the ER's legitimacy. But <meh> what do you expect. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Some WikiLove Hummus

Hasteur (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Thank you for dealing with the most changing editors in all of the community and for occasionally setting me straight on portions of the tau of Wikipedia Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR

I figured I would ask you about this, since you are being level headed in the most recent AN/I discussion, and I have lot of respect for how you acted in an RfC/U we both participated in. I've about come to the conclusion that DIREKTOR is pretty much impossible to work with in terms of trying to reach consensus due to his basic incivility. Most recently DIREKTOR has accused me of section blanking without consensus when, in fact, the changes in question were the result of discussions in July and August. I readily admit that much of my frustration is due to my belief that DIREKTOR is determined to undo what I regard as good work that came out of long mediation process (from which DIREKTOR eventually withdrew), but I'm seeing a pattern of consistent accusations and ad hominem attacks which inhibit productive discussions. Am I completely out of line in my thinking? I'm seriously considering taking up the issue at Arbcom or initiating an RFC/U, and any advice you could offer would be much appreciated. I figured asking you and Bwilkins would be appropriate, and this is pretty much a cut and paste of a request I've made at their talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A number of people do appear to have disputes with DIREKTOR. If these are sufficient to prevent constructive editing, the right course is to use a dispute resolution process. An RFC/U would seem appropriate - there hasn't been a previous one, and it gives a chance for everyone to say their piece in a formal structure - rather than the endless chain of bickering that you get at ANI. Everyone might come away with a different perspective - and an understanding of how to work together. One can at least hope:) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Delusion springs eternal. ;) Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ras.sel

Thanks so much for finally blocking him. My clicking finger is still sore from reverting his poop from this morning--I thought I was going to have to start zapping his edits again tomorrow (he seemed to quit long enough to sleep before starting again). Things like this make me miss having bits myself. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC) (formerly Blueboy96)

O hai! Didn't recognise the new username. Yeah, couldn't see the point of letting this guy continue editing until he had shown some indication of understanding copyright.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jagjit Singh

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at [[User talk:Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)|User talk:Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brown-capped Pygmy Woodpecker

Elen of the Roads: I was about to create a page for the species, and saw you deleted the previous one. What are your reasons? Looks like a viable page (not knowing what the previous page looked like)......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone in the Birds project was shuffling a load of pages, and asked for some to be deleted to move another article to. If there's no article there at the moment, just check that the bird doesn't have an article by some other name. If not, no problem to create a new one.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I created the appropriate redirect some few days ago. Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No thanks needed. I was merely breaking my editing restriction. And I was doing it anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Edit histories

I've messed up on something, and am asking for your help because you're aware of the sensitive personalities involved. Based on comments at Talk:Jupiter (mythology)#'Excessive detail' tag, I moved a section of Jupiter (mythology) to Epithets of Jupiter. Almost all the text was generated by User:Aldrasto11. I would not like to imply that this is anyone else's work, and only belatedly thought of what the article looks like in the edit history. What is the proper way to credit Aldrasto for his work? He is upset about recent efforts to copyedit and streamline the main article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The correct protocol is to put in the edit summary "Moved from/to Foo" or "Copied from Foo". If you didn't do it at the time, put in a null edit, and make the edit summary - "previous edit moved material from Foo. You can also put a note on the talkpage with diffs to your edits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Daneto

Daneto is requesting unblock. His unblock request does address the attacks against DIREKTOR, but it doesn't address the possible POV-pusing and/or edit-warring. I'm not sure how much your block was weighted to one problem or the other. I also have almost no experience with Eastern European/Balkans issues, so I have no idea if this is an obviously partisan editor who's not going to get any better, or if that area is just pretty rough and tumble anyway. Your input is appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Toddst took the decision out of your hands. That area is seriously rough, and DIREKTOR does not appear to be an easy person to work with (as you'll see from comments higher up this page). The block was primarily because while everyone has to put up with them all endlessly appearing at ANI and AE, [[WP:CANVASS]ing on a whole bunch of unconnected talkpages was so far beyond the pale that I felt I had to lay some marker down. I didn't look at other aspects of his behaviour - did anything come of DIREKTOR's allegation of socking (another problem that seems to be perennial in that area)? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to reply to this; Toddst's decision is fine by me. DIREKTOR's accusation was duck based (an IP made the same edit Daneto had previously made after Daneto was blocked), but I'm pretty sure DIREKTOR didn't file an SPI or anything to that effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

• News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

• In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

• Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

• Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

BigzMMA and Civility

Hello, you were recently involved in declining a unblock request by User:BigzMMA with regard to civility and personal attacks. I wish to draw your attention to a specific thread on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard entitled WP:MMANOT, WT:MMANOT. BigzMMA has been making remarks about the other user in the dispute (User:Papaursa) and was warned to ceace making the attacks. A short time ago they made yet annother personal attack and I told them straight out they needed to strike their personal attacks from their latest posting, gave a 1 hour deadline prior to involving an administrator, and dropped a talk page notice on their talk page. As it's now been over 2 hours (I decided to be reasonable), I request that you please evaluate BigzMMA's statements and comment at their talk page. I am also posting this to the talk pages of other administrators who have dealt with BigzMMA before to form a consensus on how to improve the inter-editor communcation. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies - wasn't around when you flagged this. Looks like m.o.p. and Ultra have it in hand. It's silly - the problem is that it's User:BigzMMA who doesn't follow GNG, and keeps trying to get articles kept that have no sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I originally thought about posting this at ANI, but I'm not sure any policies have been violated (except perhaps WP:HARASS). I've been invovled in the MMA project with Papaursa and Bigzmma and read the DRN discussion. Now several admins are recommending RFC/U. This just seems like another page that Bigzmma can bludgeon Papaursa on. His tactics seem to be working since Papaursa has pretty much ceased to post (except for responding to Bigzmma). Bigzmma has posted negative comments about Papaursa on a variety of WP pages, user talk pages, AfD discussions, etc. This seems unfair to me--Papaursa hasn't been shown to do anything wrong and he gets driven off by a user that's been blocked twice in the last month for a variety of offenses. Full disclosure: I posted this same paragraph (minus the first sentence) on Ultraexactzz's talk page (hope that doesn't mean I'm guilty of canvassing) and I've had run-ins with Bigz myself. Astudent0 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair comment. I can't see Papaursa doing anything wrong except getting pissed off with Bigz. BigZ is the one trying to keep non-notable articles, and trying to make it Papaursa's fault that the articles are deleted, not his own for failing to provide decent sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can/should anything be done? It doesn't look like WP is big enough for the both of them. I think Papaursa's remained pretty civil, certainly he hasn't seemed as riled as I would be in his place. Astudent0 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggested the 3 routs that could be taken (MfD, RfC, RfC/U) and warned Bigz that if they go down the RfC/U path that their motivations were also going to be analyzed. I intend to drop a series of policy bombs on Bigz to demonstrate that the problem isn't with Papaursa, it's with Bigz. Thank you for thinking about this. Hasteur (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the situation.

I don't know how Papaursa stood it. Bigz posted at WT:MMA that, at least as I read it, it couldn't be consensus if he wasn't involved and that consensus would require all MMA participants and fans to agree. However, my real question is that he's been contacting admins individually and trying to get articles restored that were removed via AfD. I know he's contacted users Lifebaka, Tone, and Spartaz about restoring articles. What is the point of AfDs if a single user can circumvent the whole process? Astudent0 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that Tone sounded as if he agreed to restoration of two articles. Ons subject had meanwhile won an event of some kin, an was maybe a fair restore target, but the other wasn't. With a little bit of luck my comments will prevent the latter, without DRV. Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

Tartanator

Hi, EotR. Thanks for stepping in and addressing this. I hope he will use his week's time out productively and will return, if he chooses to do so, with a less combative attitude, but I fear we probably haven't seen the last of the need to discuss him on AN/I. We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime: I share your dim view of abuse of RFPP. Seems to me it takes two to dance that particular tango, and I'm a little concerned by Fastily (talk · contribs) having granted, apparently without scrutiny or question, Tartanator's RFPP on Beijing and having quickly taken care of deleting Tartanator's rather damning user page, a request that appears to have been made in response to the user page being linked in the AN/I discussion. I stop short of accusing Fastily of aiding and abetting unacceptable behaviour, but it does raise my eyebrow. Yours? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just young and hasty I think (Fastily). I'm old and a cynic, and always check the reporting editor's edit history. As for Tartanator, if it becomes an issue, I can restore the userpage. I hope we don't see him back at ANI, but like you, I'm not confident. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're reminding me of a scene from Fried Green Tomatoes! :-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

…aaaaand right on cue: [61], [62] —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A non-typical decline of your block

See here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

George is currently rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. I'm intrigued by the message from Begoon though - I'm beginning to suspect George is one of those folks who cannot go from the specific to the general, and this is why he is having so much trouble. I'd be interested to ask The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) to read over George's talkpage - he was very helpful with another problematic user who had some similar characteristics.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't talk about me without being overheard, you know... George means well - I've long been convinced of it. I'm also convinced that he's hurting deeply. Being blocked from WP just might be one of the worst experiences he's ever had, and rearranging deckchairs is something I've resorted to when all I can see is doom and gloom, and everyone "against" me. Of course, in the long run, the doom and gloom is generally just me coming to the slow realisation that I've been a prat, and the people "against" me were really trying to help. The problem is, despite me knowing that, it'll happen again, and you will not be able to tell me this at that time. If only I knew how to keep a broad perspective on things at all times, I could probably help George to do that too - but he's surely feeling very deep in a hole right now, and I don't really know how to help him. He's been doing what he does for years, and to suddenly have the whole world, instead of just the odd person, telling him he's been doing it wrong all that time is a feeling I can only barely imagine. Sorry if that outpouring isn't much help, but it's all I got right now. Begoon ^talk 00:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's actually incredibly helpful. I'd be OK with trying an unblock if he had a mentor - although he didn't seem too keen on that. The problem is that I can't tell from what he says whether he understands the general principles. A week ago he was talking about WP:IAR - it is absolutely key NOT to ignore ANY rules when tagging images for deletion. I think he may have that now, but I still don't think he's sure why tagbombing inoffensive list articles is bringing him grief. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, these are the hardest ones. It's obviously no good to unblock without the issues being resolved. There's no getting away from the fact that, whatever the intentions, this ends up as a competence issue. I'm sure it's not intentionally disruptive, but, as Spock once said: "A difference that makes no difference is no difference". So the competence issue is what's there and it's what needs to be fixed before an unblock would do anything other than waste a load of people's time, and set George up for an even greater fall, probably very quickly. I'd probably be of the opinion that the only way to do the mentoring would be to do it from within a framework where, initially, George can only discuss any edits he wants to make with his mentor until the mentor approves. Once a point is reached that everyone is comfortable with, the restrictions could be gradually relaxed. That may take longer than George is happy with, but he'll need to accept that. Now, I guess it would be wrong of me to lay all this out and not offer to be that mentor myself, so, if you're happy with it, I'd propose that you and I attempt to explain this to him, and link him to read this discussion, too. I've not really been active recently, but I've been dipping my toe back in, and I'd be prepared to have a go at this. It may not work, and it will depend, in large part, on George agreeing and wanting it to work - but I think it's worth some effort in this case - and I'll certainly feel better about it if I think we've done all we can to help George re-channel his efforts. If it works, everyone wins - if not - we end up no worse off. Begoon ^talk 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is very forlorn. I don't want him to walk away, but I don't want him to come back and fall in an even worse hole either. If you're up for it, mentorship is definitely worth a try. Do you want to make the first contact? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh - forlorn is right... Yes, I'll make the offer, referring him to this conversation. I'm not planning to pull punches, though - this only works if he knows where he stands. It'll take me a while to lay my thoughts out clearly - so I'll post a message to him as soon as I'm happy with what I'm saying. Begoon ^talk 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok -  Done - [63]. Up to George, now, I guess. Begoon ^talk 01:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If no passing admin has already helped, would you be able to help George with [64], hopefully without any sock tags :), to ease George's concerns? Thanks Begoon ^talk 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo

Hi Elen. I find Stephfo's posts to AN regarding fastily to be inappropriate, especially after you warned him for similar actions regarding fastily's user page. Do you concur? I'm at my wit's end with this editor, not sure where to go from here. N^oformation ^Talk 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elen, thanks for your kind explanation, I do understand how the archive work wrt. how to create them etc. but why the same content is kept twice in two different versions and how it is related to unclosed sections, that I have no clue and can only assume some date-relation. My impression was that particular discussion was stored at single place (wrt. archive number) with all upcoming updates being kept there until closure.--Stephfo (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you don't quite understand how an archive on Wikipedia works. The item is archived when there have been no further posts to it after a set period. The archived content is cut from the project page, and pasted into the archive. Items in the archive may not be edited. You can find individual posts in the history of the project page - this is required for the licensing. You can read the entire thing in one place on the archive page, although it will not show content that was deleted prior to archiving. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen for kind explanation. I'm not sure if I'm wiser of it, as my impression is that the given discussion/topic was archived prior to being closed, and that implies the edits took place there even after it was archived (at least in one moment I have noticed the report with associated discussion just disappeared from main page and I could find it only in archive, while still it was open, IMHO). This is difficult to comprehend in context of sentence "The item is archived when there have been no further posts to it after a set period." as there obviously further post took later on. In other words, I have difficulties to understand that the same content is archived twice, the first time as Archive 728 and incomplete, the 2nd time as archive 729 and up-to-date. If the two versions differ there inevitably have been "further posts", but then I assume it is a "set period" that has to do with differences. But the case someone would like to add edit there into section that has been not closed yet, how does he/she learn the "set period" of archive 729? Thank you for your patience. --Stephfo (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I unarchived it because it hadn't been closed. When it was archived again it went to a later archive because the old one was full. You edited the archived version but no one else did. N^oformation ^Talk 20:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

You had previously indicated you would be willing to look into violations of Rich's editing restriction after the discussion on AN was over. That discussion has ended, and the sanction is still in place. Despite several more warnings, R.F. is still violating the restriction (a couple from the last 24 hours: [65] for {{tracklist}}, [66] for <references/>.) I don't see much benefit of going back to AN so soon after the last AN discussion ended, but at the same time I am abstaining from enforcing the edit restriction myself, as the other admins on that page seem to be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning left [67]. Will follow up as necessary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just so its on the record I think that the way that some editors have been acting towards Rich is completely ridiculous. Yes he has made some bad edits but the way some users (several of which do very few edits of there own) keep stalking him is very inappropriate and unprofessional. Not too mention bordering in creepy. In case you are unaware CBM, FRAM and Xeno basically watch every edit that he does and if they find anything even remote they run and tattle. Now I agree that if he breaks something, goes on a massive cat building spree or some of the other silliness that he has done in the past appropriate action should be taken. But when he is doing some of these "minor" edits alongside other more significant ones I think it should be allowed. Otherwise those little things are going to go on potentially forever and never get fixed or potentially get worse. Personally I think there has been a case of Envycountitis on the part of some of these editors in the past. Just my 2 cents. --Kumioko (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Carl isn't creepy, just hung up on preserving historical mark-up. Xeno has basically lost touch with what we are trying to do, and got stuck in technical implementation of rules. Fram I can never understand, he never listens to what anyone says and is constantly attacking and telling other editors what to do - and yes it is more than a little creepy being on the receiving end of such scrutiny, and it certainly detracts from both the quality and quantity of what I can achieve here. But to some extent it goes with the territory. I see that recently Merovingian has just been driven from the project, one of a long line of major contributors, who are not being replaced. I think that maybe the good old days when we worked together to produce an encyclopaedia are fading, and we now have to battle with vested interests and slightly nutty admins to get anything done. I prefer an environment of productive collegiate cooperation, to obstructive combative opposition, but I have managed to continue to be productive in both. Rich Farmbrough, 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Carl you know full well that these are perfectly reasonable edits. You stance as protector of templates such as "Otheruses9" or whatever it was you went round reverting any user who changed is counter-productive, but it does at least show that it is you that has the problem with mark-up being changed to what more reasonable editors want. It is absolutely vital, if we are to encourage new editors that we take every step we can to simplify the cognitive load of editing Wikiepdia pages. If you won't be part of the solution, please stop being part of the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

• All I want is for people to stop arguing. If Rich is doing something useful, he will easily be able to persuade (for instance) me that it's useful, because I have no vested interest in it being one way or another. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• "All I want is for people to stop arguing." A somewhat novel idea for Wikipedia I'll grant you. But not one that you further with aggressive rude and unfounded attacks. As I remarked I didn't expect that from you, although you clearly had some preconceived ideas that might have biased your opinion on events, personal attacks are not particularly edifying, except to the nature of the attacker. Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC).
  

I'm not trying to attack you. If you've caught the sharp edge of my tongue, it's because you're not some clueless n00b from Jamshed who hasn't yet managed to read to the bottom of any policy. You've been around for ages. If it was just me, I'd probably ignore all those automated edits as a form of compulsive cushion straightening, but you are driving other editors to frothing madness with 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can see that's the impression. But they are not complaining about the edits - most of the time. They are complaining about something minor I am fixing at the same time. And the rules are so labyrinthine that often what is complained about by one of the group is not only allowable according to me, but to another of the group. And if I were so minded I could, on the basis that they are arguing by technicalities rather than pragmatics, make not only the changes I make, but many others I abstain from either in deference to the community (which I have no problem with), or because I cannot afford the time to argue over them with those who will not see anything contrary to their initial position, and be technically within the arbitrary rules they wish to impose.

But really this is trivia, and unless they have something positive to add to the way pages are laid out, and they show no sign, they should move their attention to something else. We have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us, and having people, even one, whose purpose in life is to obstruct others on the project, is a luxury we cannot afford.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

Appealing AE decisions

I have looked at ArbCom rules on appealing decisions, but I do not see anything specifically addressing how one might appeal for the lifting of a short topic ban imposed through Arbitration Enforcement. What procedure, if any, is necessary to request the lifting or modification of a short-duration topic ban imposed through AE?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The appeal mechanism is at AE itself - read the notice at the top of the page, and also the edit notice (appears when you select Edit this Page)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The decision on 9-11 appears to have the provision for appeals scratched out. Does that mean appeals of AE decisions are not allowed in those cases?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire, the recent motion [68] imposed a standard text for discretionary sanctions, which includes a standardized appeal mechanism, which is outlined on the page. At the same time, I have to advise that you might be doing yourself more of a favour by just taking a break from the subject until the New Year. Just a thought. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Frederick G. Clausen

BTW, what was your rationale for leaving in the works dating from after Frederick G. Clausen's retirement? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Clausen, Kruge and Klein appear to have remained well known and producing notable buildings up until Caroll Klein left and Rudy Clausen retired. Fritz Clausen lived through to 1940, so I thought it was worth including a bit about what happened with the firm while Fritz was still alive and his son was running it. After Rudy retired, the Clausen family seem to have had no more connection with it, although the company currently running it call the Davenport offices "F.G.Clausen", so I also included a little mention of that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I just love trying to track companies. If I had known about the brick wall I was going to run into trying to write Right Start, I'd never have started it. :-) (Actually, given the edit history, I probably would have anyway, but I wouldn't do it _now_...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you qualified to dispense medical diagnoses on the internet?

I didn't know that you had a medical degree, or that you were willing to diagnose mental conditions over the internet [69]. Any real doctor would lose her license for such an uninformed diagnosis. Any real doctor would also know better to say something like that, so I'm pretty confident in my assessment that you don't have a medical degree. Please see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice.

Remember that mental illness is a serious matter. It is irresponsible to perpetuate stereotypes of how mental illness manifests itself, and even more so to attempt to provide a diagnosis without proper training or study. Buddy431 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I'm not a traffic cop either - just in case you want to discuss [70] next. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Amusing as Buddy's comment is, I should just point out that that comment does cross a line. Since civility seems to be a bit of a hot topic at the moment and this very comment has caused long discussions on Scott MacDonald's page, I'd appreciate it if you were to try and set a better example on civility matters. Upstanding member of the community and all that. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that comment was definitely a Jeremy Clarkson moment. It was intended to be funny, and just...wasn't. I have apologised to Rich, and will happily strike if the bot hasn't archived it already.

Cheers Elen. I appreciate that :) Worm^TT · (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not to Rich that you should be apologizing, it's to everyone who does have an anxiety disorder, or who has a condition diagnosed on the autism spectrum. Comments like yours just perpetuate stereotypes about how we expect people with these conditions to act, even if they aren't grounded in reality. We do have a large number of editors here who have Asperger syndrome, or OCD or some other anxiety disorder. Your attitude shows very little respect for these contributers.

If I said, "well, you're obviously gay (and I should know, I've spent a lot of time on the Reference Desk)", I'd get shown the door in a hurry. Why is what you said any different? Buddy431 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You do have something of a point with that last - I presume you are recalling the rapid ejection of an editor who made a remark of the "why are all you gays such drama queens" type. We do have a lot of editors on the autism spectrum, who tell me that they experience OCD or similar disorders, and have problems with compulsively repeating behaviours when they struggle to understand why they are problematic. I have sympathy and try to have patience with editors who are working through such difficulties, and great respect for those who manage to continue editing despite the difficulties. It is certainly not fair to compare them to Rich Farmborough, whose 'problem' (if it be such) is that he thinks his approach is the better one, even though he had a community sanction against his activities. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

• News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

• In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

• Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

• WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

• Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

• Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

• Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson Notice

I wanted to let you know, PMAnderson did appear to cast a !vote in a discussion regarding an article title (of which there is heated debate, WP:LAME and all). I noticed you did comment on the page, but I wasn't sure if that meant you saw his participation and decided it was not within the scope of the ban, or whether you just assumed he was staying out of it, or what. Maybe I'm off base and read the AN/I decision wrong.

His edit entitled "Oppose":

• Oh, no, not again. Leave it where it is; we do not adopt American spellings just because there are more Americans than Brits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYoghurt&action=historysubmit&diff=463754849&oldid=463752584

If something more policy-based needs to be shown, there's:

• You misunderstand the guidance. It is to retain what we have, unless there has been continual edit-warring; that's why it's called WP:RETAIN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYoghurt&action=historysubmit&diff=463772263&oldid=463770255

• Try reading the policy. COMMONNAME is only one possible argument, of many. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYoghurt&action=historysubmit&diff=463778366&oldid=463778238

• Not at all; it can make a great difference. WP:COMMONNAME is only one of a multitude of factors; four or five others are at WP:CRITERIA, and that list is not exhaustive. The fundamental question is which title is most useful for the encyclopedia; and since there is no reason a literate anglophone reader should care (some will care because they are fighting the Anglo-American wars, but they should not), we can leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYoghurt&action=historysubmit&diff=463765225&oldid=463764589

• You omit an entire paragraph. The bright line is:

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

There are occasions where no usage is established, and for them we fall back on first contributor, having nothing else; but the text of this article is in British English.

There are no valid reasons for this change; yoghurt does not have strong national ties to the United States, and there is no ambiguity. Some might suggest that this explains the rash of procedural arguments here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYoghurt&action=historysubmit&diff=463859765&oldid=463858010

And lets not forget he reverted a change in order to attempt and re-close the entire discussion:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYoghurt&action=historysubmit&diff=464095366&oldid=464094733

-Kai445 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I commented because while WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONNAME should be independent of the variety of English used, it was obvious that the discussion would descend into 'technical use of English', and I was concerned that his continued contribution would lead to him breaching his ban. Let me have a read of it - if he has breached, I will administer the one week block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps PBS's talk page protection was not such a bad idea. Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Comment

I am planning to avoid joining your thread on R.F.'s talk page, but I wanted to give you a little data on template usage for comparison.

For the {{TOCright}} template, R.F. himself renamed it to {{TOC right}} years ago. There are currently several redirects to the main template. Of these, "TOCright" is used the most, with 8,788 uses. Another redirect 'Tocright' (which is the same as "tocright") has 2,976 uses. Transclusions of redirects also show up in the transclusion count for the main template "TOC right". Once these are ignored, the main template has less than 6,000 direct transclusions (not via redirects). So "TOC right" is not even the most used name, much less the standard name. The two unspaced versions I mentioned have about 67% of the total usage.

Similarly, after your last warning and after one more of mine, R.F. made this edit [71]. The redirect "FeaturedPicture" has 2,724 uses. The name "Featured picture", which R.F. changed it to, has about 135 direct uses. So if the goal was standardization (which it isn't, per WP:NOTBROKEN) it would still not be clear at all that "Featured picture" should be the right name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

For some other background on why people bother reviewing R.F.'s edits, it's worth reading the Block log for SmackBot and for Happy Pixie Bot, its replacement. (At some point I decided I had blocked the bot enough and so I am abstaining from doing so in the future.) R.F. has a history of running bot jobs, both approved for bots and unapproved, on his main account. One example [72] from Nov 17, 2010. I much later realized SmackBot was blocked from 15 Nov to 23 Nov...

This sort of thing, where the bot tasks are not clearly separated from his own edits, is probably why the editing restriction says "from any account". I was not part of the discussion [73] that led to it, but that discussion seems to describe the problem clearly enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to snipe my 2 cents here the "if it isn't broke don't fix it mentality" to me, is a rather weak argument and goes against the point of a the concept of Wikipedia. The general principle about the project is that the content changes dynamically, incrementally over time. I agree that not all of Rich's edits have been fruitfal and some have caused more harm than good. No argument on that one.

Going back to the ain't broke comment though, is again a matter of opinon because there is a difference between something technically working and functionally working. Again this is just speaking from a template redirect perspective and not articles also BTW. Technically yes the template redirects usually work the same way without errors. Functionality thats a little more debatable. Its confusing, it makes it a whole lot harder to program bots when you have to take into account a multitude of redirects, the purpose of having redirects was substantially reduced (although admitedly not eliminated) by the advent of a Spellchecker and the search capability in Wikipedia, etc. Additionally, some projects add templates and redirects to the list of content they track. Adding template redirects to templates is kinda screwy and confusing and adding them to the redirect list is also a bit precarious.

I also agree there is a purpose for redirects and I agree that in 98% of cases we shouldn't be changing them if they are all thats wrong with the edit. However, if we are there anyway doing an edit that is more significant then, IMO we should also fix the template redirects. Especially if the redirect name is ambiguous to the actual template.

On the bot issue, to me, this is a different story. The community has agreed that for some edits we need to use bots. The problem is that the rules are so squishy that they only apply when we feel like hammering someone to the cross like in Rich's case. The bot rule threshold is so low that virtually anyone doing any repetetive task of more than 50-100 articles could be called out for violating it. My biggest problem here is that I can in even a manual manner crush a few hundred edits a day without AWB or other tools so it makes the need to submit a bot request and wait a few months for approval a bit moot. I can submit a task and wait a few weeks or knock it out in a couple hours and move to the next one. Kind of a no brainer. So, although I cannot completely resolve Rich of blame for some of his actions, if the bot process were a bit more timely they probably wouldn't have this problem. --Kumioko (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

On the template issue, Kumioko explains it pretty well, combined with what I say on my talk page. The only clearer explanation is by.. er.. Kumioko here (end of section), where the table really brings home the typical situation.

Carl cites the block logs for Smack Bot and Sad Pixie Bot. Whether you (Elen) consider block logs significant or not is really important in answering that point. I have thought of creating a page "SmackBot - the real block log" in the past, but decided this would be too divisive. If you (Elen) consider it relevant I can annotate the logs quite easily. On the other hand if you consder bot blocks trivial, then its a waste of time.

Thirdly Carl says "R.F. has a history of running bot jobs, both approved for bots and unapproved, on his main account." This is a meaningless statement, what, after all is a bot job? Carl conceived, for some reason, that there was a rule that stated that if you had a task approved at BRFA you were not allowed to make similar edits manually, and still seems to cling to this long standing fallacy. In fact there is no such rule and never has been. Even if there were it would not forbid doing other tasks manually. Every time someone makes a statement like this it furthers the idea that I run automated edits from my main account. Effectively character assassination by attrition.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

So editing at a rate of 1 edit every 2 seconds is NOT automated? [74] And you really were sitting at your computer for hours-long stretches on Christmas Day just hitting save? [75] –xeno^talk 18:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can go much faster than that, and I already told you I was using standard AWB for those edits. You can see me here stop and fix up some templates. When I offered you my deerstalker and meerschaum on AN/I, it wasn't because I thought you were exhibiting the characteristics of the great sleuth, it meant that your deductions were completely faulty, and perhaps the trappings might give you inspiration to be a little more accurate. (Elen, my attempts at humour are also completely misinterpreted.) Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Hmm... I'll just say that I find this incredibly hard to believe. But to each their own. So I suppose if we take you at your word, this means that if you are editing at a rapid rate with AWB, and there are careless mistakes that would have been caught by appropriate diligence, such errors may be attributed to human carelessness rather than unattended automation. Of course, neither is appropriate. –xeno^talk 18:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You have to be realistic about error rates. And as I said both the quality and quantity of my work are suffering form this whole affair, not only am I constantly looking over my shoulder, expecting to be jumped for some trivia, distracting me from real errors, but I have no time left over from the constant fire-fighting to actually make the type of process improvements that might help. You have attempted set up a regime where errors are permissible, but non-errors are not, what do you think the consequences of that are likely to be? Having said that, this is all a red-herring pretty much. The actual issues are 1. Is there a correctly processed ER in force, 2. Are the attempts to impose it sensible. For 1. I argue no, and it seems pretty clear that no consensus was ever gathered. For 2, even if I were wrong on 1. I can see a spectrum running from "unwise" to "plain loony-toons". I keep AGFing that no one would be a WP:DICK enough to get upset at say, fixing "UK Legislation", only to find that I am wrong, again. I really cannot believe even now that anyone would seriously think they are doing the project a service by trying to preserve outdated template names, typographical errors, obscure mark-up, pornography, typing short-cuts and other miscellaneous cruft. But it's like the old saying about giving someone a uniform. Give them a mop and they put it on their head and think they are Harpo Marx. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

In the incident I linked, in the three days from Nov 15 2010 and Nov 17 2010 R.F. made 4,062 edits. In the three hour period starting at 22:00 UTC on the 16th, he made 1,438 edits, averaging 7.9 per minute over that 3 hour period. Nobody can tell whether those edits were automated, but that volume and speed of editing is indistinguishable from automated editing. A more recent example was 1,439 edits on November 27, 2011, mostly related to the spelling of Encyclopedia Britannica. These, for lack of a better word, are what I call "bot jobs". The exact manner in which the edits are made is not the key point, it's the volume and speed of the edits, which are utterly unlike what we normally think of as "manual editing".

I do stand by the claim that when a bot is blocked, it is not permissible for the operator to run the same task on his or her main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I say, I'm really not getting much done these days. Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

This claim is trivially against natural justice and common sense. If someone would have been allowed to perform a task manually, then going through the task approval process should not disbar them from performing it manually, even if the bot is blocked. Bear in mind that there are a multitude of reasons a bot can be blocked that may have no bearing on that or any task.

Someone should not be penalised for following process.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

• • Weighing in on this last. If a bot is blocked, it is not permissible for the operator to carry out the same task on a manual account until investigations have been completed. The operator needs to be spending his time working out what the problem with the bot is, and getting it resolved. If the bot is blocked for running logged out for instance, then although the editor might legitimately do the bot's tasks, it's better to fix the logging out problem. If the bot is generating an error as a result of a bug in an upgrade(I'm thinking Rezabot last month), then the operator might have to do some tasks manually until the bug gets fixed. If the bot task was not authorised by the community and that's why it was stopped, then it isn't authorised for any automated edits, or for a campaign of edits either. So Rich is right in the abstract. In the specific - I think it likely that when your bots were stopped, you ought to have stopped carrying out those edits, as they were stopped because the community didn't want the edits done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Really I don't want to get in to this, digging up stuff from a lifetime ago. But I have read the history, Carl points to, and apart from Carl being wrong in principle, in practice it was a different task with a short custom ruleset. I explained that at the time, I even posted the ruleset (some few dozen rules compared with SmackBot's then hundreds) since Carl is so hard to convince of anything. Nonetheless he remembers the incident as he initially diagnosed it - which is par for the course. (I actually remember folk being less obnoxious or obstinate than they were, re-reading all this old stuff is partly why my attitude to Fram and CBM has hardened over the past 24 hours.) I do agree if there was consensus that a task should not be done, then the means by which the task was done would be irrelevant. And indeed that is why I oppose BAG being given authority over non-bot editors, it is simply not necessary. Anyway as I say this is one side-track among many, due to those who wish to widen the debate, for whatever reason. Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC).
      

More R.F. issues

Despite the ongoing discussion, R.F. is again violating his editing restriction. Note that some edits listed here have more than one issue, but each is listed only once.

• Capitalization changes [76] [77]
• Redirect bypassing, not built into AWB [78] [79] [80] [81]
• Comment removals, not built into AWB [82] [83] [84]
• Causing errors in the text: [85] ("Lennon–McCartney John Lennon and Paul McCartney, Performed by The Beatles")

I think my discussion post turned out to be less productive than I hoped, so I'm not planning to post any more threads like that, and just limit my comments to things like this. But if you have specific questions for me I will try to answer them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikispecies is a proper noun. FFS. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

As I mentioned before, I don't see anything in these examples that causes me concern. All were done with a more significant edit so they don't worry me. You did raise a good point and that is redirects for sister wikis like wikispecies so I may add those to AWB later. On the Persondata comment I opened a discussion at the Persondata talk page about that a few days ago. I personally think, as I stated there, that the time for leaving comments about "This is a persondata template" are gone and we don't need to do this anymore. Especially now that it will be added by a bot if its not there. --Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this - it's like paramagnetism, however many times you see it you still can't believe it.

1. We established already why those comments are not worth keeping.
2. We established already (several times) why most template redirects are worth by-passing.
3. Wikispecies is a proper noun, using lower case for that is tantamount to saying we should set 'pedia in comic sans.
4. Everyone spells {{Infobox}} with a capital I. Yes even people who can't spell yogit.
5. The encyclopaedia gains nothing, I repeat, nothing, from these antics. You are an expert in a subject where you can make valuable contributions, and yet you prefer to chase around, placing obstacles in the path of others, mass reverting those you disagree with (and it's not just me, it's a significant number of editors). Instead of "protecting" the Maths Project from having a banner name in the same format as every other wiki-project, "protecting" obscure parameters of templates that are used in maybe one or two (dubious) places of several million instantiations, protecting grammatically incorrect, misleading and downright bitey template redirects - get with the program! Write something on non-linear dynamics, or functional operators or group presentations, or matroids. Or do vandal fighting - but find some real vandals to fight, stop tilting at windmills. (Huggle and Stwiki are both excellent.) Or find something off-wiki - anything!

Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Although I don't agree with any of the numbered points, I am trying to avoid getting back into that seemingly unending discussion. Each of the edits I linked violates your edit restriction (except the error(s) in the new text), and the purpose of my post was simply to point out that such edits are still being made. Tersely, — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And I was pointing out you're wasting everyone's time. Verbosely. Rich Farmbrough, 23:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

• • Comments for both Kumioko and Rich-−

Errors

• this is an error - the automated edit has not recognised the piped link when replacing Lenon/McCartney with Lenon-McCartney
• this wasn't a redirect, it just had the same words - the automated edit hasn't recognised that.

It's not about bypassing redirects, it's about using the standard attribution. The fact that some of the attributions are links is just a bonus. Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

That's two out of the four edits in that area on that day, an unacceptable error rate even for me.

Fiddling around

• {{Infobox_album}} contains the words <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->. Before you start ripping them out with automated edits, get them taken out of the template. Until that point, leave the edits alone

• Wikipedia:Persondata#Using_the_template contains<!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] --> Get that fixed first.

Larger issue

In fact, I think this highlights a larger issue. What you need to do is get some consensus on how something should look now - the comments, the redirects. Then get agreement for a one-time bot run to fix it everywhere. After that, the use of automated or manual editing to correct new errors would be acceptable. Until then, all I can recomment is to stop bloody fannying around with it, because there's no current consensus to remove that text. And you are under editing sanctions. And I will block you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if you want to block someone based on a poorly worded ER for which there was no consensus, and for which there was consensus recently that it was not validly passed, I guess you have your reasons. Meanwhile CBM edit wars in his usual fashion, and retcons his arguments, Fram continues, doubtless, on his merry way, either harassing me or some other poor unfortunate, and Xeno will return to making snide comments when I attempt to protect a user from real life stalking. But it's all good. Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Eh? –xeno^talk 19:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

2011-12-12

It appears that R.F. has made some changes, for example apparently no longer automatically replacing <references/> with {{Reflist}} and not removing the comment from the persondata template.

But there are still several custom changes being made by his AWB setup that violate his edit restriction. These are all after the last report.

• Capitalization changes in template invocations: [86] "infobox road"; [87] "wikiquote"
• There are quite a few edits that replace Template:Portal box with Template:Portal. Three examples: [88] [89] [90]. Both templates are acceptable; "portal box" is not even a redirect to "portal".
• Other template replacements beyond AWB's defaults: [91] "italictitle"; [92] "tocright" ; [93] "coords"

It would be perfectly straightforward for R.F. to stick to a stock AWB install, just adding new rules for the particular change that's being made. Instead it appears from the diffs that he has simply turned off some of the changes I mentioned above while leaving others enabled in a custom set of AWB rules. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be perfectly simple for Carl to stop being a pain in the neck. He recently said he is going to go on a reversion spree to reintroduce an extinct template. Well he has done this before, but this is the behaviour that seems reprehensible. I would really appreciate an uninvolved admin looking at Carl's history in these matters over the last couple of years. I wouldn't mention it, foolish and irritating though it is, but when his slightly strange editing starts to impact on others (as it has on some really difficult projects I have undertaken, and is doing now, since he is extending it to abusive calls for administrative action) I think it's time that someone took a long hard look. From anyone else I would classify CBM's posts here as WP:POINT but I think he genuinely believes he is doing the right thing. However it passes the duck test as WP:POINT - I.E. it is still disruptive, regardless of the motivation. Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

If you are violating your edit restriction, you are violating it. The arbcom case was rejected on the theory that the community could handle things well enough under that edit restriction, which implies that it needs editors to notice and report violations. During the subsequent AN discussion that upheld the edit restriction, Elen indicated she would be willing to hear about these reports, so I have posted them here. I have no personal remarks to make about you, I am simply pointing out objective violations of your editing restriction. Additional examples since the last report include [94] and [95] (bypassing the non-redirect "portal box") and [96] (capitalization of the stub template). — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And I am simply pointing out the objective violations of WP:POINT. Rich Farmbrough, 09:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Carl that we shouldn't be changing Portal box to Portal but they the other petty little changes are fine in my opinion as long as he is doing other more significant changes. Especially the infobox to Infobox one. To me it just looks silly to have infobox in lower case and since infoboxes are frequently cramed full of data and parameters I find it easier to read when the template starts with a upper case and I can tell it apart from the parameters. On the Portal box to Portal change though I will say this. If the logic for Portal now subsumes the need for Portal box we should deprecate portal box and do a bot to replace it and move on. We do absolutely need to discuss it first but I don't think its a particularly contraversial change in the evolution of the pedia. --Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that sums up my concerns. If these changes, which appear 'cushion-straightening' to some, are actually of significance to the project, then we should agree them, have a list of them somewhere, and get people to code bots to fix them. It seems to me that it is people fiddling around making changes with AWB that cause the grief, through a combination of the change not being discussed, the semi automation introducing edits errors, and whatever else it is that gets people aerated. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate how we use these tools generally, rather than giving them freely to people then castigating them for how they use them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should also consider that when one does ten edits, those edits can be done without error relatively easily. The problem is that when you do 10, 000 edits, regardless of how careful you are, the law of averages says your gonna screw something up do to the sheer lack of standardization rampant throughout WP. That is part of the problem that Rich (and a lot of others in various ways) is trying to address. There is a very good reason to allow the use of redirects, whether those be templates, articles, etc. among them being user friendly editing. There is less of a good reason why we should leave these millions of redirects when a decent bot can be programmed to add the correct link. Especially, in non article namespaces such as templates and categories. Lets also consider that CBM has made many many errors and even his bots are not without flaws, useful as they are. What most of his bots don't do though is make edits. So if his bot that builds the assessment tables completely forgets to calculate FA's it might be a while before someone notices. If someone is editing 10, 000 articles and makes a couple mistakes on a watched article though all hell breaks loose and some editors run around like Chicken little screaming the sky is falling as they discuss what to do about the impending disaster.

The answer here isn't some knee jerk reaction, locking down of the tools but to approach the situation intelligently. Is there harm to the pedia if an edit is made that breaks something, YES, absolutely, is the world going to end if a redirect is changed while doing another edit? No, not so much. I really think that we need to deal with the situation appropriately rather than gut punch Rich every time he changes a redirect or have 3 or 4 editors spend hours mining through his edits looking for a good bludgeon (preferrably heavy with sharp edges). I personally believe that by and large, Rich is living within the spirit of his restriction even if he does occassionally taunt the guards. I am also still pursuing the discussion about getting rid of that Persondata comment. --Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

2011-12-20

I thought today to check again to see if R.F. had fixed the problems with his AWB rules, but I found he is still violating his edit restriction. The following edits are all from the last 24 hours.

• Removal of "persondata" comments: [97] [98] [99] [100]
• Bypassing templates that default AWB would not: "infobox Russian ..." [101] [102] [103] [104] ; "portal box" [105] [106] ; "clearleft" [107] ; "cite paper" [108] ; "language icon" [109]
• Changing "references" to "reflist": [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]
• This edit made a comment in the source make much less sense [118]

— Carl (CBM · talk) 22:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There have been some more since then, of the same sort: [119] [120] [121] [122]. This edit [123] left an article with both a "Refrences" section and a "References" section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you all know that the requirement to include the persondata comment has been removed per a discussion on the Persondata template talk page and a followup discussion has gained support for removing the comment when a more significant edit is made. The PersondataOmatic app has already been updated and a Feature request is currently pending with AWB. So I think that as long as he does it with a more significant edit as he did with these he should be ok.

In regards to the Infobox comment I think that one could be addd to AWB. Since it doesn't simply involve an upper/lower case issue but a clarification of the title itself I think its ok. I realize this is still a debated subject though with some editors. Regarding Portal box if the logic for portal has deprecated the need for Portal box then we should eliminate portal box and just use portal. I will open a discussion about this one and see if we can get some clarification. I do agree that Rich shouldn't do this one until we get it clarified. Although I agree that clarifying Clear left and Language Icon is helpful I understand others don't and he should probably not do this one. IMO though as long as its done with a more significant edit its fine. Clarifying Cite paper to Cite Journal is valid IMO and helps to clarify what it is.

With the new upgrade to Wikipedia in the last couple months the rendering of "references" and "reflist" are the same. I read somewhere fairly recently that it is recomended to use the appropriate template rather than HTML markup and using the template helps to determine how many articles have reference groups. Its much easier to do a transclusion count of Template:Reflist than to try and calculate References+Reflist+whatever else.

On the last one I kinda agree with Carl that it reads better with the HTML tags. I do think that AWB has logic built in to eliminate HTML coding like this that has nothing in it but I think it ignores if its in comments. It might be worth asking Rjwilmsi if AWB ignores things like this in comments or not.

Some good points Carl but mostly just nitpicking. --Kumioko (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talk page for Portal box about merging Portal and Portal box and just using portal box. There have already been suggestions about combining to other Portal related templates as well. I have asked Rich to not report anymore changes to Portal box to Portal until the discussions conclude to prevent the possibility of changing something and then having to change it back. Just wanted to let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you have been following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Workshop#Proposals_by_Elen_of_the_Roads but rather than the rather odd sanctions Rich has about how AWB is coded (and, I'm supposed to know how AWB is coded. Me who only just now learned how to programme her VCR?) I'd like to see if something similar could be thrashed out in respect of Rich's sanctions. I think you've picked up on the key issues - edits that don't really have a consensus, and the introduction of errors. If you've started to get consensus for some of these edits that's excellent, and if Rich will stop doing the edits that don't yet have consensus, the whole silly argument could pretty much stop.

I don't think its a lack of consensus so much as not taking the time to document it. In most cases (I admit not all) the edits are helpful and generally reflect the attitude of the mob, but instead of starting a long boring discussion about something that 98% of editors wither agree with or don't care about, he just did it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy question about AfD aftermath

I just read your comments at WT:MMA and you seem to know a lot about WP policy. I don't, so I was hoping you can answer a question I asked at WT:MMA#Jake Bostwick/Bashir Ahmad (martial artist). Can editors just "reinstate" articles that have been removed at AfD and is there any practical difference between "reinstate" and "recreate"? Thank you. Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson at RMs

Elen, please see PMAnderson’s post at the very bottom here at a perma-link to Talk:Yoghurt. Writing How many are in this self-appointed "community"? I see three: Greg, Kai, and Born2Cycle is clearly a rhetorical question intended to suggest that there isn’t a broad “community” speaking, but just three “self-appointed” editors who have somehow managed to manipulate things. As is often the case where PMA drops in, his post was inflammatory and unhelpful. FWIW, the community consensus at the RM is exceedingly lopsided with a consistent policy being cited as the underlying premiss.

The previous post to which PMA was responding was mine, where I wrote of the “community speaking now.” What I was addressing there was how an admin had suggested that those participating in the RM were being disruptive. I was making the point that when 30 to 40 editors in good standing (from I.P.s out of seemingly nowhere to Xeno) are weighing in on an issue) then the *community* is speaking and by definition, a community action like that can not be disruptive by participating in an RM.

It certainly is not helpful to have someone come in and try to egg on others with an inflammatory suggestion that amounts to “Where is this *community* you speak of? All I see is three self-appointed editors” and then he goes on to name each of the three. By naming all three, there was bound to be someone to take the bait—and they did.

As you may recall from PMA’s ANI and resultant editing restriction, RMs were left up in the air because there were many that did not pertain to “Technical aspects of the English language.” Many RMs are things like Current wars in southern Sudan → Current wars in South Sudan (because the latter covers the newly formed country). However, it seems to me that the majority of RMs that are of interest to PMA are ones involving technical aspects of English. Those are hot-button issue about which he has a highly motivated style when interacting with others. He has a consistent and persistent pattern of baiting and accusation when participating in group discussion. Notwithstanding that you reminded him here at the bottom of his talk page, to Just be careful not to stray into problem areas, he proved that he can’t.

Most editors just don’t know of his history and when challenged at a personal level, take the bait. Over on Talk:Yoghurt one editor, Kai445, upon learning that PMA has a history of this sort of thing, responded with I didn't realize he was topic banned, or I would have just not acknowledged him from the get-go (∆ edit, here).

I think it is best if his restriction… is Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year is formally interpreted to be precisely as written and includes RMs. Greg L (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The admin who alleged that 30+ editors in good standing were somehow being “disruptive” by participating in the RM struck that part of his post (and apologized there and on my talk page) after I pointed it out to him. Greg L (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Kinetic sculpture race‎

Vandalism has started up again on Kinetic sculpture race‎. It is likely being done by a group of people who are trying to take over the event in Humboldt County. I am concerned that I am too close to the situation to edit/repair this page, and for your help. This time edits are coming from an anonymous IP, but they are the same type of edits as were previously done by User:Ebenezercore and other anonymous editors. I appreciate your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing vandalism? I noticed this edit earlier, but thought it was pretty harmless. Prior to that one, it's not been edited for months.  Chzz  ►  06:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, that the last time this group of people made similar changes to today's edit/reversion/reversion was a while ago. Just because they're not doing this every day doesn't mean what they are doing is correct. Their rewrite of the page was reverted earlier today, correctly... and now reverted again to the incorrect version which adds useless information and changes the weblinks from the actual organizers to the folks pretending to administer the race. Note the paragraph at the bottom which claims some form of contract expired in 2011. No citations, no sources, because that didn't happen. The race is administered by "Kinetic Universe" organization, not the "reconstituted Humboldt Kinetic Association." The races all over the country are not franchises, nor are they required to sign any paperwork with the Humboldt Kinetic Association. All that is fantasy. There isn't even a newspaper story to back up any of it. It's unfortunately important because this group of people is fundraising under the banner of another organization by pretending to be the people in charge. In truth, this is the work of a group of people trying to take over the county's single biggest event by using "The Big Lie" approach. I'd really appreciate any help you can render in this situation. As one of the former organizers of this event, I feel I am too close to it to make the changes myself, but I know first-hand what these people are up to, and it's not harmless at all. Here's the closest to a citation I can find that makes any sense out of the situation Northcoast Journal "Kinetic Klash Kontinues" Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I do see what you mean, upon checking things more carefully. Another user had removed some of the edits [124] but I've now restored the prior version [125] [126].

I would not necessarily call the edits "vandalism"; it's more of a content dispute (even if it's pretty clear that the refs do not support the facts). It could of course be discussed on Talk:Kinetic sculpture race if necessary. Anyway - hope that helps. I was just passing, really.  Chzz  ►  07:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm Busch (pastor)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wilhelm Busch (pastor)". Thank you.Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A question about the abortion case

I’m not really sure which of the arbitrators to ask about this. I hope it’s not a problem that I ask you.

During the abortion case, ArbCom considered making a finding of fact about OrangeMarlin’s incivility, but ultimately decided to suspend remedies about him until he could return to editing. Now that OrangeMarlin has returned, the issue of his incivility has resurfaced at AN/I, and it’s becoming clear that the community is not capable of resolving it. (Multiple people have commented that the issue is too complex to be dealt with there.) There haven’t been any steps in the dispute resolution process beyond the unresolved AN/I thread, but I think there are also a lot of signs that additional dispute resolution is unlikely to resolve this issue. And more importantly, the wording of ArbCom’s decision “potential remedies are suspended until he returns to editing” seems to be saying that ArbCom would be ready to examine this issue again if the issues resurface after OrangeMarlin’s return. (Which they have.)

Could you please tell me whether I’m interpreting this aspect of the decision correctly? If so, I’d also like to know what course of action ArbCom had in mind to re-examine this issue if that proved necessary. I don’t know whether the appropriate thing here would be to request a full case, or just an amendment. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct. Arbcom were in agreement that no sanction or action could be considered until OrangeMarlin was able to respond. There was a disagreement as to whether it could be noted that his behaviour was very incivil. If OM has returned to editing in the area around Abortion as construed within the case decision, then he needs to have cleared up the incivility matter with Arbcom first. If he hasn't, he can be blocked forthwith, and the case discussed on his talkpage. If however he has returned to being incivil in other areas, then this particular case/discussion/sanction is not relevant, and his general approach to editing needs to be tackled.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think he’s returned to the abortion topic area. The current incivility that’s being discussed is occurring in other areas. Do you have any advice about how the issue ought to be handled in that case? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, the normal processes (WP:WQA, WP:ANI) should suffice - it is even open to one of the set of admins vulgarly referred to as the "civility police" to block him (a look at the list of admins who have blocked User:Malleus Fatuorum will give some idea of who I am referring to.) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion at AN/I about whether or not to block him for incivility, and there was obviously no consensus for it. I know consensus isn’t ordinarily required for a civility block, but isn’t it regarded as disruptive for an admin to block someone when the community clearly hasn’t reached consensus that it’s appropriate?

It’s becoming clear in the AN/I thread that even though everyone has strong feelings about this issue, the community is unable to reach a consensus about what to do. There was a previous AN/I thread about the same issue a few months ago that produced basically the same result. There have also been four different WQA threads about OrangeMarlin in the past year, none of which have been able to avert the current conflict at AN/I: [127] [128] [129] [130]

So, I think it’s evident that the community simply isn’t capable of resolving this issue. Do you think at this stage the appropriate course of action is to request arbitration? That’s definitely the direction I’m leaning, but I would like to know if you think it would be better to deal with this via something like an amendment to the abortion case. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, you have mail. Hans Adler 01:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa

• News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community

• In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed

• WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia

• Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 workshop revived, two cases set for acceptance and the ArbCom elections finish on a whimper

• Technology report: Trials and tribulations of image rotation, Article Feedback version 5, and new diff colours

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:OlegLisePP

You've reviewed and accepted the unblock request for this user, but they still appear to be blocked. Is this correct? — An optimist on the run! 07:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be unblocked now. Don't know what happened there - more haste, less speed I guess. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Elen of the Roads. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

May be of interest

In case you haven't seen it, you might be interested by Q16 of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 4. FWIW, I think you've been quoted so far out of context that your comment looks much worse than it was. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note guys. It appears my personality lost me my job yesterday (local government cuts - senior managers are faced with picking between people who have all been in the job years, have very similar experience etc. Bad times all round), so I guess you could call that karma. Have appended a note to the question - I'm still very embarassed about the comment to be honest, but not wholly convinced by Slon02's response. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that.

I know that your job has been filled with stress the last year. I trust that your abilities and experience will land you a better position soon. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I really appreciate the good wishes. I know everyone's going through hard times, and not just in the UK. Hopefully the stress at least will tail off now it's all done and dusted and the uncertainty's out of the way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how many people get laid off just before Christmas. It's no doubt a worrying time, but take heart; I was made redundant in 1992, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. I hated the job, but the money was good, so it gave me the kick up the backside I needed to find something I hated less. In the end I set up an IT consultancy with an ex-colleague who'd also been made redundant at the same time, and we never looked back. Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It is, isn't it. I expect often it's because the accountants can see the year end position looming, and know that Jan-Mar is never a good time for sales of anything. To be honest, after having two projects (an internal freecycle web application and a mobile app for reporting such as faulty streetlamps that fed directly into our crm) canned this year at point of launch, I think I should have taken the hint and moved on earlier, but as you say, you get comfortable and put up with all kinds of stuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this: any time a calorie-free stroopwafel would help, let me know. I wish you every success in finding and excelling in a new real-life role where your talents are more appreciated. You have contributed a lot to this project, and I hope that such a future will bring even more praiseworthy contributions from you here. Geometry guy 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind thoughts and sugar free confectionery :) It's been more the shock than anything else at the moment. Changing times, changing times. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. Good luck, don't change too far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm Sorry too. If it's any consolation, most of the good things that happen to me tend to occur just after seemingly negative events which I wasn't expecting, and wouldn't have chosen. If that sounds cryptic, basically it just means (and here I quote my ever eloquent, late father) "fuck 'em - I control my life". You'll be better, happier, wealthier* for the experience (in that famous, mythical "long run"). Oh, and hopefully you'll end up with a better job too :) Seriously, it's no fun when stuff like this happens, but I actually found the best 2 jobs (out of 8) I ever had through forced moves, and started my own business due to being affected by a company restructure. Never looked back... (well... sometimes wish I wasn't my own boss, but I get over that quick...).

"You'll look back at this and laugh" - my grandma used to say. She was right sometimes, too.

(*wealthier is an estimate. This estimate may contain peanuts or other nut products, or have been produced on machinery previously used to produce products containing nut products. Users should take professional advice before relying on unprofessional anecdotes.)

Season's Greetings. Begoon ^talk 12:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

E-mail business

"I'm concerned at the suggestion that [editor] sent Bishonen some kind of rude email". No, no. I probably made it sound worse than it was, please don't be concerned. (Feel free to quote me in case you're planning to make any further post — I've stated I'm done there, myself, and I really am.) It was just the kind of e-mail one doesn't like to get, you know? But your seconding of my suggestion that the editor keep communication on-wiki is appreciated nevertheless. All this privacy is a sad mistake. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Well, I'm reassured that it wasn't actually rude. Email can feel quite invasive sometimes, and I do think that if its making you feel like that, it's better if anything relevant is said onwiki. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

please restore article you just deleted

Elen of the Roads, would you please restore the M.E. Bell article which you apparently just deleted.

It was fucking unnecessary, IMHO, for SarekOfVulcan to put in a Speedy Deletion on it, which i was just responding to, but the Talk page was deleted too. Yes, obviously if there is an article on this person already, then it will make sense to merge the info. I don't think you should condone or encourage SarekOfVulcan in running up some kind of tally, of negative impositions at my talk page or of articles I have touched that he has successfully disrupted. I do wholly object to the Speedy Deletion. Please restore it now, so that I may effect a proper merge of material.

Also, in particular, it is wholly unnecessary to actually delete the page, as SarekOfVulcan and you too probably should know. It will be proper to have a redirect from one name or the other. Please restore it with its complete (brief) edit history. --doncram 17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss at deletion review. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 19#M.E. Bell. --doncram 18:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

.

Invitation: WikiWomenCamp

Hi. You do a lot of fantastic work with Wikipedia and ArbCom. Given that, I wanted to personally invite you to attend WikiWomenCamp being held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in May 2012. This is a women's only conference, followed by a two day gender gap conference open to every one. Your experiences and knowledge base would be a great thing to add to the event. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fascinating, but I can't see me making it to Buenos Aires unfortunately. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah well. :) You will be missed. :) You do very good work. :)--LauraHale (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

PMA is now at ANI

Elen. I wish it didn’t come to this, but I took PMA to ANI, here, for his persistent violations of his topic ban. Greg L (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for the community discussion leading up to PM's topic ban. Oh, crap, Elen, don't you know how to make a permanent link? See Simple diff and link guide. (I wrote that sucker, out of frustration with this kind of thing. For the n00bs, you know.) A nonpermanent link to ANI will live for a few days at most. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC).

Of course I know how to make a permanent link. It should have been a permanent link. I always use permanent links for things like that. I can only assume I had two tabs open at once, the permanent link page and the live page, and picked the link off the wrong tab. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the impatience, it was a gutta cavat lapidem outburst. I would have removed it again if I hadn't been on the run. I've fixed the link. Also, it wasn't me, it was the anklebiter. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC).

you too

In case there's any chance of you changing your mind: User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Malleus_Fatuorum_arbitration applies to you too. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If it had been "in the summer" or even "last month", maybe. I was kind of involved over the whole Rodhullandemu thing, but wouldn't have recused over that. But I did specifically say that I would overturn Thumperward's block, which I think is too involved to be an Arbitrator. I would make a statement if it came to evidence - Malleus says things that would make a City trader blush, but he's really very supportive of people who are here to edit, and rather than just ignore his complete downer on admins, the community should at some point have made a serious attempt to address just what the problem was. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I look forward to your statement if it comes to that. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 23:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The valid orignial reference to the Wikipedia galling article, on a permanent URI: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-2790

You asked for the link to my scientific report on friction mechanics, here it is. Peer viewed for a total of 12 months by at least one professor and several high rank academics and university officials and published at Academic archive On-line (DiVA), on a permanent URI: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-2790

• Wallin H. 2008, 129 p: An investigation of friction graphs ranking ability regarding the galling phenomenon in dry SOFS contact : (Adhesive material transfer and friction), A free pdf document available here or www.diva-portal.org found here or at www.uppsok.libris.kb.se here use search words:"galling & Harald Wallin" or the direct libris link here

And may I humbly ad, it will probably soon be a piece of scientific history in al it’s simplicity =)

--Haraldwallin (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter block

Thank you for stepping in and taking much-needed decisive action. Somewhere in the ANI thread there is a list of Porch's three or four alt accounts. I'm thinking maybe they should be blocked as well, for his own good as much as to enforce the block. Obviously my admin tools are out of play with regard to this user, so I'm fine with whatever you think is best, just wanted to be sure you were aware of the alts.Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel sorry for the guy, and I hope he gains clue, but somewhere else, not here. I'll check out the alts. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not I actually feel sorry for him too. Iit is difficult to get an incompetent person to understand that their incompetence is the problem. We actually have an article about this, it's called the Dunning–Kruger effect. Showing such persons the door is an unfortunate but necessary part of maintaining this project. Thanks again for your willingness to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I really don't think he's a bad kid. He just doesn't belong here. Elen, you handled it well; firm but not confrontational. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. He actually does seem to think he's editing well. I thought there wasn't any need for further pile-on, the situation was clear to the rest of us. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked 4 alts - If he's going to be blocked, especially for 6m, it should be across all of the accounts. If I've missed any, give me a shout. I can't say that I saw things so clearly though, and have put up an alternative on ANI. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, when all the best efforts have been expended, this is where it goes. It's a bloody shame, because, here, again, is a user who I really think means only well. Sadly, sometimes there is just "no fit". The funny thing is, even though I've been away for a while, this was one of the "sagas" I have followed, so I do happen to have read the details, and I can't see what more could be done right now. I can only hope PC will benefit from the "break", which I support, because, that way, the effort he, and others (Worm, I'm looking at you) put in won't seem wasted in the long run. It wasn't. Begoon ^talk 13:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I spend enough time working with problematic editors that I have to accept I'll lose quite a few to being blocked - and I can't say that Porchcorpter will ever be a brilliant editor. And I've had enough success (even with PC) that it offsets the time spent. However, I don't think he's done anything worth a block here, let alone a 6 month ban. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You do spend that time, and I genuinely wish I could be as philosophical as you are sometimes. I obviously don't have the in-depth knowledge of this particular situation that you do, given the enormous time that you have invested, so forgive me when I get things wrong. Although I've not been involved, I think I've read about 80% of this whole thing, and links, going way back (previous RFAs, mentorship, IDHT etc...), just from interest. I said I support a "break" largely because there *does* come a point that an editor's contribution are causing more problems than solutions. At this point, sadly, I think this is the case here. Of course - a comment like "Shit, I'm sorry, I never realised all you guys were just trying to help. I'll try harder and hit "Preview/Cancel" more" could still help, even now, because wikipedia is more forgiving than the least demanding mistress, and people here will happily give a 536th chance if there's still some prospect of success. A side note is that it would be lovely if we (me included) extended that good faith to some of our well meaning new editors (who, rumour has it, are important to us). Ideas for how we extend our pool of forgiveness to new/IP editors seem relevant here too. I'm not being facetious in any way here - these are questions I would love to just scratch. Begoon ^talk 13:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Even as Porch's Wiki Otter, I think the way you handled this was possibly for the best. Although I suggested waiting for Worm, if Id been in his shoes Id have been secretly pleased at you making the block a fait accompli , sparing me the task of trying to turn concensus around. I wish I was still as positive about life as WTT seems to be! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Elen, Porchcorpter is still throwing his pity party on his talk page. He's now exhibiting the same behavior he was blocked for in the first place. The best move might be to revoke talk page access and force him to do something else for the next six months. Otherwise, I think I'll continue to see updates on this "punitive block" and his computer troubles from his talk page on my watchlist for the duration of the block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fastily beat me to it, and I agree with the talkpage block. I think otherwise he will continue to use the page as you describe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks

hi i want to thank you for your comment at [131]. it was one of the only level headed ones there. thanks. Bouket (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Block concerns

Hi,

I'm concerned that Dolovis' block is keeping him out of the picture too strongly, given the length of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dolovis gaming the system – again, which he cannot respond to, for what may be too long and a bit too punitive. Much in the same way Malleus was unblocked to respond to the ANI/Arbcom debate about him, I think it would be prudent to give Dolovis the same right, else there are unfair double-standards at play.. one favouring preventing an editor from defending his contributions and explaining any disruption, whilst one allows an editor who "swore" to defend his uncivil remarks.. but his unblock was not essential to improving the encyclopedia. Dolovis' edits were at least related to Wiki and not some childish remarks that doesn't bear any significance on production, and with a Topic ban discussion being heavily supported, he's too restricted at the moment. Fair play needed here, methinks.. what say? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC) PS: Please drop me a {{TB}} on reply.

In the case of an ANI discussion it is more usual to copy over statements from a blocked editor, as I note has been done. It is slightly different to an RFAR, where the editor is expected to present evidence. Also Dolovis said in the unblock appeal that he wouldn't have time to contribute to the discussion. It's a bit awkward now also because JGreb has refused the block appeal. That said, if Dolovis were to appeal because he want's to input to the discussion, I would look at it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 DRV

Hi. You collapsed the discussion at WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 3#WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1. I would like to discuss BD2412's restoring the page history under the redirects. WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 was closed as delete, and I didn't find any discussion regarding restoring. Would you consider undoing your collapse so that I may raise this point? Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of things. I suspect the answer would be that DRV isn't the place to discuss that. Also, Wikipedia's own licensing requires that the history be kept where an article is redirected, so BD2412's action was technically correct. Also, George's DRV was so badly formed that if you want to argue that the articles should be deleted, you'd probably do better starting again.

However, if you still want to uncollapse it, you have my blessing. I only did it to avoid taking up any more time from any one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your permission. I will reopen the DRV. WP:Copying within Wikipedia requires that the history be kept if content is copied, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that a merger has been done. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Badly formed"? How, aside from that fact that I might have used the DRV as a page protection or something like that? --George Ho (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Selery

Only 48 hours? You are soft...I would have gone for much longer for that threat, by analogy to WP:NLT. T. Canens (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It was an immediate response to the abuse of Tom Paris that I blocked him for - but then it probably should have been longer. I think if you look at his talkpage now, he's definitely moving into NLT territory, but he other than that statement, he has dropped the thing entirely onwiki, so I'm not sure it would warrant any further action. What do you think? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Diacritic topic-ban nightmare

As I feared, the Dolovis topic-ban was quickly enacted (by User:28bytes) without a "consensus agreement buy-in" from Dolovis. Plus, I was hoping, in vain, to extend the ANI discussion to allow more people would come help amend policies so that "all" would share the same written restrictions, causing "everyone" to figure how to make these concepts work. Someone even mentioned asking MediaWiki developers to fix "Move-rename" to allow moving articles back-and-forth (all day) and just pile the edit-history log deeper on each end. However, as you are likely aware, Dolovis moves very quickly, and has already asked for details (about loopholes) in the ban. I am reminded of a character called "Artful Dodger" although I do not think Dolovis intends any harm. I posted to his User_talk:Dolovis with a long apologetic ANI-explanation to diffuse any hostilities (from his or his supporters), as just one aspect. Meanwhile, there is no buy-in consensus on his part, to focus on the same goals (rather than loopholes), because no one asked him how to make peace with his opponents. He moves so fast when he has time (his ice-hockey stubs are awesome 1-edit creations with sources+infobox), so this is a skyrocket editor needing some strong navigational fins. He is in the top 1500 most-active editors? Is there anyone else who could help you craft a "consensus buy-in" perhaps allowing an early unblock in return for promises to focus on goals rather than loopholes? Fundamentally, the enacted topic-ban is a nightmare because it does not prevent him from creating articles which would anger his opponents, as technically he could still create WP:COMMONNAME articles (ignoring the birthname diacritics), so you and others need to define what causes the anger with other users and ask him to agree to avoid that stuff. I am a mathematician and I look for tautologies or Catch 22 situations (damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't) where the situation is uncontrollable due to endless loopholes, and the only solution is to focus on meeting high-level goals to avoid the general technical loophole problems. I wish there were a consensus agreement with Dolovis to reduce conflicts with the related editors. I just do not have time to think how to solve the major issues in this. Sorry if I made you worry, but I fear more trouble ahead. Perhaps in reviewing this, you can at least plan for some new problems here, and then you will be prepared for the surprises. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikid77, the problem is that Dolovis seems to regard diacritics as personally offensive, or the work of the Devil or something, and has not accepted that his actual editing behaviour is seen as problematic. I have noted that all very fast moving editors seem to have a tendency to brush off all criticism, and to be reluctant to make alterations in their behaviour that would slow them down, but coupled with Dolovis's abhorrence of diacritics, this makes for a bad prospect. Also both he and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COMMONNAME. 'Spelt should be used instead of 'Farro', because it has a common name in English even though it's mostly grown in Italy. Tomas Tankendjinn isn't Tǒmás Tânkeņdjinn's common name in English, it's just his proper name with the diacritics stripped out by a lazy typesetter.

• Thank you for clarifying. I can appreciate the concept of the "lazy typesetter" but that needs to be WP:V verified with WP:RS sources, when a majority of sources spell the name with the 26-letter English alphabet. That is why the 18th U.S. President was called "Ulysses S. Grant" even though "S." is not part of his birthname ("Hiram Ulysses Grant"), but somewhere people added the "S." and even fewer Americans would know if asked, "Who is Hiram U. Grant?" (perhaps Hugh Grant?). Now I could speculate the extra "S." came from a common typo as "Ulysse.s. Grant" but instead, the WP:COMMONNAME is used, and sources must verify the "S." as being a typo which is too rare for the title. If you read other writings by Dolovis, he uses similar reasoning and asks people to cite sources to defend use of the rare spellings. So, that is the other view. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:Having said all that, I had hoped that the topic ban would have been rewritten into plainer English. I dislike the lawyerese we tend to use for this, much prefer "... must not do this, must not do that, may do this but must not mention the war..." etc. I'll have a look later on, when I have a bit more time. Striking this comment - 28bytes has done a good job of setting it out in simple language. I suggest yourself and GoodDay don't inadvertantly confuse Dolovis by arguing that it means anything different. (added Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

I also agree with Marcus British that revisiting that RfA and trying to get a consensus would be useful, because the current situation generally is untenable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoration of the file as I requested.--Ali Baba (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Last sock standing

Snön lyser vit på taken

Endast Darwinbish är vaken!

Viktor Rydberg, "The tomte" (1881)

little ankle biter 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC).

Psychofish does poetry. Who knew? But why did Google translate think it was Croatian. If we knew that, I feel we may be close to mastering one of the mysteries of the universe. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

User:PassaMethod

Hi, Elen of the Roads. I know that users can be blocked if their editing is damaging the encyclopedia. You did so as recently as with User:George Ho. Well, User:PassaMethod is constantly adding poorly-sourced/unsourced material, and original research or synthesis to Wikipedia articles. I've told others about this, such as User:Boing! said Zebedee, but they seem to believe that there's nothing we can do about this user other than reverting him and warning him when he messes up. I disagree. Like in George Ho's case, when an editor almost always messes up, they need to be stopped. PassaMethod almost always messes up, and I don't like any of his editing. See these discussions or topics for why.[132][133][134][135] He is a horrible, horrible editor, often including original research or outright falsehoods (as witnessed at the Virginity article where he was reverted [136]) or misrepresentation of sources. In addition to the examples Boing! said Zebedee recently dealt with -- at Category:Erotic fiction[137] and Elvis Presley[138][139][140] -- other examples include this edit which was reverted to the Child sexual abuse article,[141] this edit which was reverted to the Human article[142] (which was also discussed[143]), and the discussion of synthesis regarding his edits to the Pedophilia article.[144] There are a lot more, some of which are documented on his talk page. And look at these edits[145][146] from just a few days ago.

He created the Sexually suggestive article days ago too, and -- ugh -- I don't feel that this user should edit any topics, let alone sexual topics. Can't we get a topic ban for this user? I wish he'd just stay away from these topics because he isn't that educated on them and it's only a matter of time before he adds OR/synthesis to them. And on that note, will you take a look at his edits to the Puberty article, the "Morning wood and random erections section" in particular? "Morning wood" seems like a very unencyclopedic title.

He also recently had his user name changed from User:PassaMethod to User:Pass a Method. 50.19.24.180 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know already, I've also commented about him at User talk:Jimbo Wales. 50.19.24.180 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not going to have too much time to look today (have to get my student offspring back to their establishments of learning), but will take a look as soon as I can. I do believe that one of the roles of administrators is to tackle (or at least highlight) disruption, so if he is problematic, I would take it further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Please note this is an IP evading a block via a proxy and has been doing so for weeks while whack-a-mole is being played. It's now rangeblocked. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion needed

Hi Elen. Sorry to bother you with something that's not your concern but I need your expert advice. The situation with mass AfDs of school articles has gone critical and complex. Something needs to be done urgently, but I don't particularly wish for my talk page to become the venue for the inevitable dramafest, and we need to know where best to take it. You'll need to read this thread and this thread. Thanks in advance your advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User JohnC

This effusion [147] follows your warning to the user by less than a week [148]. User can't control his predilection to violate WP:BLP. Also otherwise insulting, with apparent issues regarding Jews, as here [149] and here [150]. Thanks, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Per above, I've reverted the postings at Kosher foods as offensive. The BLP violations are perhaps the most notable examples of a long term tendency toward soapboxing, to put it kindly. I contacted you because of your previous involvement with the user, but I'm thinking of re-submitting a report to an appropriate page. Thank you again, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, RL intervened - not been around for the past few hours after I removed what was a clear BLP violation. I agree with your reversions - I note a few previous problem edits as well. Seems Scott Mac knocked him on the head --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That happens--real life will do that. Thanks again, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi. Sorry to trouble you. If you get a chance, could you look at the diffs around this unfortunate accident: [151] and see if you think anything needs RevDel or anything. I think I'm probably being too sensitive, but a second opinion from a wiser head never hurts. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Recently started article that may require ArbCom tags

Hi Elen of the Roads.
I recently started the article Yehuda Getz. As the article's subject matter appears to be within the scope of an ArbCom ruling, should that article's talk page include {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} and a mention of the discretionary sanctions?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's usual to put a warning on the talkpages of articles that are covered by discretionary sanctions, so everyone is clear. If you want more discussion on whether it does or doesn't fall into the scope, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification is your place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mo ainm

Not to get in the middle, since I've done very little work, but you state that there are outing concerns about what SonofSetanta wrote. If the username they pointed out is correct, there is definetly a problem here. Specifically, "a user who then re-enters disputes and topics where their conduct was likely to be noticed (blocks, disputes, disruptive editing, contentious and edit warred topics, and the like) may be seen as evading scrutiny. The community would usually expect to know that the individual has a past involvement unless this was clearly not controversial, and especially if there is still non-trivial involvement or involvement in disputes or editing controversies. Clean start is not a means to resume similar conduct while concealing a past track record." I am strongly concerned that there is misuse here. Hipocrite (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

CLEANSTART doesn't propose any remedies for that situation though. All it does is advise that if you go back to your old haunts you will be recognised. I'm not convinced this was a true CLEANSTART, as the user did it for confidentiality reasons - however it is always true that if you have a recognisable editing style and edit around those who knew you, they will recognise you. Given that there are no sanctions in the guidance, and other guidance does recognise the right to abandon an account for security or confidentiality concerns, I don't think there's any action an admin would take here. As with SonofSetanta, looking at editing from this account should be enough to identify whether there is a problem or not. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the last thing controversial topic areas need are a bunch of fake clean starts from accounts. I suspect if the question was put to the community, they'd agree with me. Perhaps you should just topicban both of them? Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, after further review. I disagree. WP:SOCK, a policy page, states "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic," and has since at least before a major rewrite("and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. That is, you should not turn up on a page User:A used to edit to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, while denying any connection to User:A, particularly if the edits are contentious."). WP:CLEANSTART states "The principle is that clean start is not a license to resume editing in areas the community might need scrutiny or where scrutiny has happened in the past. It is intended for users who wish to move on to new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct." There is no clean-start here, there is an attempt to evade detection. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the value in quoting a three year old version of that page. I can only go on what it says today. What do you want to happen. Mo ainm isn't going to acknowledge his previous account and SonofSetanta says he doesn't have one? I'm not going to conduct an archaeological expedition, and if you ask Mo for his previous account you'll run into the outing issue. I'll block the bloody lot of them if they don't edit constructively or go edit a different article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mo ainm is not, and never will be, a valid clean start account. He went straight back to the area where he had racked up blocks, and he has not done so in the spirit of a reformed and relaunched persona, but rather as an experienced wikilawyer whose old associates knew exactly who he was from the outset. He carried on where he left off, as "Mo ainm" he's since racked up 39 hits on a search of the ANI archive. He cannot be allowed to hide this history behind this outing claim, 'personal information' was never his original stated reason for a clean start, and the information is nothing but a first name, that's it. Not even a very distinct one either. Who is going to be able to identify him using that? Nobody. There never was any risk of outing here, but he's maintained it as it's proving an effective screen for him. Here's the truth: Mo ainm clean started so he could dump his block log before it became long enough to make certain dedicated admins start to take notice. Sure he might not have been blocked as the reincarnated Mo ainm, but you surely don't expect him to slip up now after all that experience, and hand you some easy to see incivility or edit warring blocks now? But that doesn't hide the fact he resumed the same old meat puppetry, tendentious editing and general gaming that was the mark of his previous account, which if examined long term together with the old account, could, should, and would, look very very bad in relation to several core behavioural policies, given his chosen field of interest. Underpants of Doom (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, nobody is going to block him for who he was. If his editing is bad, there are standard procedures to follow. Wikipedia:Request for comment/Mo ainm for example. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Underpants of Doom, before you post any further please make a statement regarding any previous accounts you have edited with, a statement regarding your motivation in this affair, and a statement regarding your understanding of (WP:SOCK,WP:MEAT,WP:FRESHSTART). Your familiarity with WikiLanguage and WikiPolicy belies your newly registered account status. Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the biter bit. Yes, as his one and only act was to create an account and post here, I have blocked the account. If he has an honest explanation, I'll eat my hat apologise profusely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Elen, I came to ask about that. I see you blocked as a sock, yet didn't checkuser (and, indeed, I was unwilling to proceed with the SPI at all unless some actual justification for a checkuser was put forward). Do you know who that is supposed to be and saw a clear tell? You might want to comment on the SPI if so, for the record. — Coren ^(talk) 02:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to see socks coming out of the woodwork to throw mud at me in the hope some will stick, have a sneaking suspicion I know who it is but a little shorter than their usual comments, I would love to see a diff of any edit I made that is blockable I have made over 7000 edits here to over 3000 unique pages, if an editor breaches our policies it is not my fault I don't sit there and make them hit the edit button. Finally thanks Elen for the clear head today you have done good work. Mo ainm~Talk 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. SonofSetanta (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not trying to bite, just very suspicious about editors who are vociferous on talk pages of contentious topics. Wikipedia doesn't work unless SOCKers discover that registering a new account to avoid scrutiny doesn't help their cause. I've responded to UoD's reasoning on their talk page where they attempted to respond to my request. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Redacting statements

Hi, I hate to bring this up as you have enough comments on various parts of Wiki over it, but my comments on the 1RR AE about SonofSetanta have had comments redacted by the edit. I am wondering a couple of things. Is there an outing issue over the thunderer ? And if so should I not have been informed to redact my statements? Also is SonofSetanta allowed to redact my statement? Cheers. Again sorry to bring it up.Murry1975 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There isn't an outing issue over saying SonofSetanta is the Thunderer, it's just a bit pointless. If it is him, he's not editing with both accounts, and just saying 'that's not me' isn't a blockable offense. Everyone has said it, it's better to just let it drop now, and focus on people's current edits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up between here and below.Murry1975 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to add that I am very confused about this situation too. Earlier you told me that I couldn't undo the redacts made by One Night in Hackney, even the ones in my own text. You and the other admin gave a judgement that editors should stop calling each other the names of susupected sock puppets so (copying One Night in Hackney) I redacted comments made by several editors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Discussion_concerning_SonofSetanta. I then received a warning from User:Timotheus Canens that I wasn't allowed to do that either and that only an admin can redact comments or the original editor. In effect then: I can't undo comments in my text made by One Night in Hackney but I can't redact accusations of being a sock puppet either and no admin has stepped in to do it for me. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What I particularly didn't want you to do was get in an edit war with Hackney, because admins were getting twitchy and blocks would have resulted. Hackney redacted an alleged previous username that had been abandoned because of concerns about real life identification. This is a valid reason to start a fresh account, and other editors shouldn't try to tie the two accounts together onwiki. As you saw in the archive discussion you were pointed to, there is a more confidential record that ties the two accounts together. In the case of calling you the Thunderer, I'm sure it's very annoying, especially if you aren't him. But even if you are, it's of limited impact. CLEANSTART doesn't actually say you will be blocked if you go back to editing in old areas, it says someone is bound to recognise you and put two and two together. Which is just common sense, particularly if you have a recognizable editing style.

In general, editors should not modify other editors' comments. What Hackney did was OK, but only because of the outing concern - if some of the edits needed to be revision deleted, then the sooner they are removed from visibility, the easier the task is for the oversighter, and it is always considered better to err on the side of caution. You shouldn't remove references to The Thunderer because, although I'm sure it is very annoying, there's no risk of identifying (or mis-identifying) you in real life. Does this help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that does help. It clarifies where I stand. You're also correct when you say it's very annoying. How can I prevent it from happening again? (I do recognise you've mentioned it but you haven't warned the participants - just me). I'm very concerned about fair play because from where I'm sitting it looks as if I'm doing my best to avoid arguments and insults but I'm getting them anyway.SonofSetanta (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

They now know they've been asked to stop. They don't need notices on their talkpages. You can archive or delete the one on yours as you see fit. If anyone starts up again now, admin action can be taken, because it's disruptive to keep doing something after you've been asked to stop. If you keep on with constructive editing - which you have done at the talkpage through the last few days - you should find people more supportive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me. Only one thing I would like to say: my editing has always been constructive. I am in this position because I made a simple error which certain editors seem to have relished as an opportunity to stop me editing the UDR page. The complaint against me is spurious but rather than repeat the mistake I made when I first joined (which is being used against me) I have stayed focused and simply asked for advice and waited until I got it. I am exceptionally grateful to you and others for helping me and I assure you that if you read my track record you will see that this is not a normal situation for me. All I do is edit articles and join in freely with others. I've been discussing matters on the UDR talk page because that's what I'm here to do. I don't want to be arguing with other people - I find it far too stressful. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't intending to impugn your previous editing, it's just that I'd only looked back as far as Jan 9. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you happy now that I'm not a problematic editor? SonofSetanta (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion on hearing this arbitration request

Greetings Elen of the Roads! As per [152], I would like to ask you to recuse from this matter because:

• of your implied affliation with the essay project through your statement ("we've had a few of those lately around the project") here;
• and of your confirmed affliation with at least one of the essays within the project here.

This may constitute as a personal involvement with the issue. If you indeed believe this qualifies as recusal, please explicitly specify on the Arbitration Case as at this time, it is assumed as a decline. All the best, Whenaxis talk contribs 01:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have no grounds for this request. My statement "a few of those lately" refers to compromised accounts, not essays - we seem recently to have had a number of old accounts rise from the dead at the hands of a hacker. And just because in 2009 I opined that something was an essay, and therefore the essay rules applied, does not disqualify me from saying that your arbitration request is outside the remit of the committee - which it is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I now realize my mistake was truly incomptent out of my typical manner of Wikipedia editing. Just one comment - you keep making references that I'm not a sockpuppet or a hacked account - I appreciate your protectiveness and sympathy, if you will, because sometimes all Wikipedia editors have one of those moments when we're like "Oh, shoot! What have a done. That was such a mistake". And that's how I feel with the entirety of this arbitration case. As I read further into the depths of the Wikipedia policy and procedures governing the ArbCom, I realized that this matter is indeed totally out of the scope of the ArbCom and I would like to omit and fully repeal my request. Thanks for your patience, Whenaxis talk contribs 22:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for your sympathetic words that made me realize that I had absolutely no case at all for the Arbitration Committee and made me realize my recently bizarre editing habits. I truly and honestly appreciate what you've done, no matter how minor you think it seems. Whenaxis talk contribs 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm touched. I have to admit your request looked a little off the wall, and one's first instinct is to check for a new account, sock etc, but I figure you just disagreed with the funnies on the project. Not everyone does agree with them, but they tend to be minority voices. A lot of the humorous essays are from the early days of the project, so it may be that the culture is gradually changing. It genuinely is not something that Arbcom could even think of looking at. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Case has been removed, so you might not have seen my comments. If you have a concern with a particular page, then WP:MFD is an option. Sometimes 'humour' does conceal personal attack or other unsuitable comment, and some humorous comments do overstep lines, and it is not unreasonable to say so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you once again :) All the best, Whenaxis talk contribs 01:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Idea for a April Fools Day Joke

I would like to set up a April Fool's Day Joke that involves ArbCom this year. Specifically I am thinking of probably a Request For Amendment with the express purpose of granting a "By Request" reprieve to every editor every site banned, topic banned, under current block, and to clear all active sanctions on any editor who requests. The idea is to play on the joke that on one day of the year the committee reserves the right to completely loose it's mind. I am asking about this as it's intended to be a prank (but a very good one) that will get some chuckles. As it's ArbCom I want to sound out the idea first before I invest time in it. I don't want to completely disrupt the page for the day, just to raise some eyebrows in a non-traditional way. Your thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll need to be quite clever to pull it off well. Have you by any chance been recently watching Dogma (film)? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom issue

Ellen I see you are a member of ArbCom. Would you be willing to help me with a project concerning an ArbCom decision? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell me what you are trying to do, and I'll tell you what process you might need to undertake. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I do apologise for the lateness of this reply. I have had a little difficulty. Notwithstanding that I would be very grateful if you could contact me by e-mail (link on my profile). I wish to speak to you confidentially to seek advice. When you see what I have to say you will realise why I don't want to make it public. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to email me - I have it enabled. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-written entry in RFC section of Talk:Storm in a Teacup (film)

Green Cardamom has recently rewritten the proposed entry to avoid OR. I wonder if that changes your mind. --George Ho (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you're a drafting Arbitrator in that case

I'm not sure what prevents you from putting up a FOF that Δ is being harassed. [153] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:209.56.73.2

Hi, your block notice on this User says they've been blocked for one year, when in fact they've been blocked for two years.  :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I blame the cold meds. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussions - other Wikis

Hi Elen. Do you happen to know if it is permitted to invite users from projects on other Wikipedias to comment on our RfCs? Such as for example the wording of the {{Please see}} invite template that we put on project talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC) -Nudge ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously WP:CANVASS applies, but outside of that, if it would be of interest to users in a sister project or might impact them in some way, I can't see why not. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Hello, Elen. Thanks for trying to improve my recent edit to Wikipedia:Blocking policy relating to compromised accounts. I certainly agree that your version is clearer and neater. However, "the account is being used by someone other than the person who registered the account" is not absolutely correct, as we have account creators who create accounts for others who are unable to do so. That is why I did not write something similar in my initial edit. Despite that, for now I will leave your version in place, because on the whole I think the greater clarity is worthwhile. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to admit I wasn't thinking of that facility. I'll see if I can think of something that includes that...or maybe you or someone else will. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Can I appeal a block (in the normal form) after it expired? And can I appeal a block at the RFC/U? Best regards, JCAla (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a semantic thing going on here. The purpose of an appeal is to have the block removed - ie to be able to edit again. Since blocks are preventative, an appeal normally consists of explaining how you won't do whatever it was that got you blocked again. Once you can edit again, there's nothing to appeal. If you want to argue that the block is bad, you can continue to do that in a number of forums after the block has ended, but it won't be an appeal against the block. If you want to argue that an admin is behaving badly, then making one bad block isn't enough evidence - you need to show a pattern of bad decisions before any action would be considered. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative reply. One last question: Is there a way to remove a bad block from the block log if it is being considered undue? JCAla (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is technically a way of doing it, but in terms of policy it requires really exceptional circumstances to even be considered. I've never known it ordered formally by Arbcom as part of a case. Usually mistaken or totally bad blocks are overturned on appeal while the block is still running, giving a chance in the unblock summary to explain that it was a bad block. I've done this myself a couple of times, where a sockpuppet case has accidentally caught up an innocent editor. The unblock reason explains that the block was erroneous.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. JCAla (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

In your closing of the WP:AN about me, this statement jumped out at me: "Requiring change in heart, philosophy or mental state is beyond the scope of this noticeboard". I've been getting a lot of good advice lately (see my talk page); if you have anything specific to suggest for me, I would really appreciate it. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I rather like that

Nice close. Well done. I especially liked Requiring change in heart, philosophy or mental state is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Indeed. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Thinking about the above-quoted portion of your closing statement, I don’t think anything short of electroshock therapy could cause a “change in heart, philosophy or mental state”. Perhaps the RFC/U will identify if that underlies the root reason for his behavior. It might be that a tendentious editor, feeling that Occam’s razor is getting perilously close, can finally modify his or her behavior in order to conform to conduct-expected; I’m sure some people can. But I also suspect that other personalities, having successfully navigated over thin ice without falling through, will fall back on old ways when they no longer perceive peril. I just found an RfC by another admin complaining about precisely the same sort of thing—back in 2009—that drove User:GTBacchus (also an admin) off of Wikipedia.

Anyway, thank you very much for your closing of the ANI. I’m still thinking about your close statement. Sometimes I wonder if such closing statements are accidents or are understated strokes of wisdom; rather like when people in an art gallery look at some abstract art and speak of “It’s an interesting juxtaposition of innocence and man’s inhumanity to man, set off with Vincent van Gogh-like reds in the background,” but the artist looks at his work and says “Gee, I ran out of green paint and just threw a whole bunch of what I had left over at the canvas and then went to make myself a peanut butter sandwich.” Greg L (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. My youngest daughter is an art student. She says stuff like that happens sometimes. "Serendipity" is I believe the posh word for it. As for the close, there did seem to be almost a suggestion from some quarters that if a user improved their editing without going through some kind of Damascus road experience, it was somehow invalid. All we can see are the edits. While I agree that someone who alters their behaviour without really understanding what the problem was is probably not going to avoid problems in the future, we have very little deeper knowledge of most editors, and so WP:AGF really rather requires us to take the change in editing practice at face value - ie assume that it represents a desire to edit less problematically, unless evidence appears to the contrary.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the second half of your observation reflects a widely shared sentiment and that argues against pursuing an RFC/U. I once had to work with a head salesman who behaved like B2C and once accidentally got into a business relationship with someone like B2C. The arguing styles of that business partner (catch me if you can, and pay no attention to my previous excuses) are uncannily similar to B2C. So I think I have earned the gray whiskers in my beard (when I let it grow out, anyway) when it comes to this type of personality. I just don’t sense that B2C is at all like PMAnderson, whom I really rather like when he isn’t hopping atop tavern bars and insisting that only his songs be played on the jukebox.

It might indeed be wise to just drop this if I’m reading the tea leaves accurately. But, please note that admin User:Tedder had to start this RfC against B2C in 2009 for exactly this sort of thing. When I read that RfC, it is striking to me how B2C’s excuses there are exactly the same as those he employed at this recent MfD over a dirt‑file page B2C created (and used every wikilawyered excuse to justify having done so). I’d put my money that B2C will quickly resort to taking tendentiousness to the ragged edge and, a year or even two from now, will go way too far. Hopefully our company’s medical implant (for weight loss, mind you) will have passed human trials and I’ll be sipping margaritas with little umbrellas giving a toast to Wikipedia: “B2C’s all yours, fellas”.

And not to focus too intently on B2C here, but GTBacchus made a valid observation that Wikipedia’s processes for reigning in and dealing with tendentious editors is abysmal. My broader intention is to use the sandbox and the processes developed there and in the upcoming RFC/U to serve as a paradigm for how we go about dealing with tendentious editors. It’s a lot more than just B2C. Somehow, there must be a way deal with the phenomenon of allies and friends doing knee-jerk defense of their tendentious friends in order to successfully deal with and avoid the damage they cause to the community. Greg L (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You should have tried discussing anything with Gavin.collins. But then again, I have recently been working with George Ho. George at one point appeared a hopeless case - he was frequently correct in his view on both notability and copyright, but his interaction skills were so problematic he ended up indefinitely blocked. However, these have (hopefully) been overcome. George may possibly never understand exactly why he sometimes generates heated responses, but we have worked out a strategy that largely gets over the problem. And even Gavin edits very successfully at Commons and Wikisource. So it is possible to 'edit round' the kind of communication issues that Born2cycle presents, without him needing a personality change. And I'm an optimist.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

On the tendentious editing thing, you are right. We throw the whole lot into a bucket marked 'civility', but that only allows us to deal effectively with users who call each other nig-nogs or something equally awful. Users who don't cuss, don't use racist abuse etc, but who are absolutely impossible to edit with (there is a blast from the past that I am thinking of here, not anyone in current discussion), take a hell of a long time to deal with. SandyGeorgia says we need a policy on 'collegial' editing, although I'm not sure that word means much in most places. But we do need a way of dealing with the kind of person who in real life you might know or work with, who is ok to exchange a few words in the corridor or the car park, but if a group of you are in discussion in the canteen and he heaves into sight, everyone suddenly has an appointment with their orthodontist. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• I hope that the RFC/U will serve as a paradigm for how we handle this sort of thing from hereon. I don’t pretend to have the answers; all I’m doing now is collecting raw, unorganized evidence and soliciting help to strategize on how to proceed. My sandbox for the RFC/U is User:Greg L/sandbox. I think I’ll start a section on “lessons learned”. SarekOfVulcan pointed out that the sandbox stated that the planned outcome was a perma-ban. So I made that open ended and to be discussed. That will be one of the lessons learned as I endeavor to fix what’s broken. BTW, I find B2C’s first sentence of his 23:55 post, below, to be illuminating. Greg L (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just watch the neutrality of the language in a couple of places, and avoid ascribing intent (eg lying) where what you have is just edits (eg contradictory statements). Just let people draw their own conclusion as to motivation. Itgoes over better that way in my experience. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My experience is that it's not a good idea to judge people based on on-line behavior by the same standards we use in the real world. Things get out of hand much easier on-line because of the inherent physical disconnect. Therefore what might appear to be a need for a very challenging "change in heart, philosophy or mental state", might actually be much less than that. I think that's one reason AGF is so critical and effective.

Because of the behaviors that I have acknowledged and pledged to address, I suggest what Tedder, GTB and others have encountered with me is not because of me being tendentious, which the five outside opinions on that RFC/U confirmed I was not (e.g., "I don't see anything wrong with Born2cycle's behavior.", " rather than accusations of disruption and tendentious editing for which I see very little evidence of.", etc.), but me being tenacious to the point that it's frustrating and infuriating, and especially me continuing to push my position after it has gotten to that point. Some of us software engineers with decades of online communication experience have learned to put our emotions aside in online disputes, and just forge on focusing on the content and issues at hand. I see now that this can be easily mistaken by others for psychopathy.

As to the MfD debacle, that was mostly poor communication and miscommunication, fueled by my obstinacy and failure in fully reviewing the relevant policy, though the insistence by Greg and others that the file was plainly wrong, without explaining why, was not helpful either. Frankly, I'm still unclear why it's okay to create a file of diffs/evidence once one has definitely decided to pursue formal DR to resolve a dispute, but it's not okay to create such a file in the hopes that just starting to collect the evidence like that, and notifying the other accordingly, will resolve the dispute (informal DR, if you will). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have said that's true - online we know only what people choose to tell us, and we mostly have to take that on trust. We have none of the other cues and clues that we have in real life. And equally, we have very little to soften the typed word - no downcast face, soft voice, tight hand gestures, to tell us that someone is on the verge of tears, no bright grin and sparkling eyes to confirm that they are being cheekily humorous. I believe it is possible (a) for someone not to realise how they come across and (b) for them to adopt a strategy to avoid coming across like that once they do realise. As to the file, it is a bit of a "because I said so" argument, but it's what the community decided - if you have a beef with someone, the best thing in the initial stages is to have it out on their talkpage ("Darling, whenever you say that, I feel so downhearted...."), and if that doesn't work, and it's not a situation where you can just forget it, then the community view is that getting the opinions of others either formally or informally is the way to go. Keeping a list of perceived wrongs in userspace is I think viewed as a little creepy.

I think you have picked up on the problem though, and have the right idea as to the solution. It's fine to ask for an explanation, and it's fine to disagree with something or pick up on a weak argument, but sometimes one simply has to agree to differ, and find a way to do that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just one point of clarification: I wasn't "keeping a list of perceived wrongs in userspace" in the file in question - I had just started (less than 24 hours) compiling the evidence of the disruptive behavior, much as Greg is doing now with me at User:Greg L/sandbox (only mine was just a short list of diffs and a few short comments), when the MfD was filed. Does that effort seem creepy to you? Greg obviously genuinely feels my behavior is problematic and needs addressing via RFC/U, so he has started compiling what he believes is evidence of that behavior. I think that's fine. And that's exactly what I did, except I was hoping to resolve the situation without having to go to formal DR - that just starting to compile the evidence would be sufficient to bring the disruption of the editor's behavior to his attention and persuade him to stop.

During that MfD discussion I noted that I had done that once before, and it seemed to have been effective in that case, and that file was still existent, though long abandoned. That prompted someone to mark it for deletion, which I quickly changed to a user deletion, and it was quickly deleted. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit on Dicklyon's page - just started a file about your inappropriate and disruptive behavior here: I hope this will be enough to give you pause the next time you find yourself inclined .... It would be great to never have to add to it again - sounds like something out of a Raymond Chandler novel. "Listen, Marlowe." Big Al indicated a folder on his desk. "I got a file here on you. It would be great if the DA never had to read it." How did you think the guy was going to react? Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks like the comment truncated in a way that makes it look like a threat rather than convey the constructive purpose I intended. What the comment actually said in full: "I hope this will be enough to give you pause the next time you find yourself inclined to comment about people rather than content, or revert a change without reading and evaluating it first"

How I thought he was going to react to it was either ignore it, or, hopefully, think twice next time he was about to comment about people rather than content, and pause to reconsider next time he was about to revert someone else's edit without reading and evaluating it first. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What it sounded like was a threat and, with the greatest of respect, since there was no point in making the comment if you thought he would ignore it, anyone reading it would suppose that your hope was that the threat would make him hesitate to cross you again. "I'm watching you Marlowe." Big Al tapped the folder meaningfully. "Maybe next time you'll think twice before you poke your nose into my business." At the very least, it shows that you are right to think that your edits are coming across as something other than what you intended. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought one possibility of how he would react would be to ignore it. The other possible reaction, the one I was hoping for, was what I said above about commenting about others instead of content in general, and about blindly (without reading) reverting others in general (not just me). Anyway, it had nothing to do with crossing me. I didn't think or feel about it that way, nor did I wish to convey that. This makes me wonder what he did think of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C: This is precisely the wikilawyering out of you that drives people insane. Just how deep do you want to dig a hole here for yourself? At the now closed Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon, it was proven there that you created your dirt file at 19:01 on 5 January 2012‎ and that just elven minutes later (19:12, 5 January 2012), you rubbed Dicklyon’s face in the fact you had done so for the overtly obvious purpose of deterring him from opposing your efforts to get your way on Wikipedia. You’re trying to revive a settled issue. You received a huge TROUT from an admin for your being abstruse beyond all comprehension and for jumping up and down about how policy allowed you to do what you were doing, only to be forced to retract all your previous lame excuses by offering up a *new and improved* lame excuse about how you never actually bothered to read the very policy you yourself were quoting and that everyone else was pointing out to you. Then the consensus was to delete your dirt file, and it got deleted. Now you are re-raising the exact same arguments in the exact same manner all over again. And… why????? To demonstrate that you are not inherently, chronically, unrepentantly tendentious???

What are *humans* to you? Just pawns to move aside in your war to always have your way? Do you have any idea how man man-hours have been devoted by the community to lean over backwards to deal with your presence on Wikipedia? Do you realize how much time Elen of the Roads devotes now to trying to straighten you out? Do you not care about any of this? I conclude you don’t care one iota and only care about whether you get your way. GTBacchus wrote this on his talk page (User talk:GTBacchus#So sick of this bullshit): …until you come along with your revolting attitude, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER let up, no matter how ROTTEN you make other volunteers feel about giving their hard work and time to a project they used to love. That didn’t seem to bother you much. I note that you did profess to really like his very last post as he stood on the bow of his ship and jumped into the water, in which he concluded with Someone gently teach him, please; that part you apparently really liked a whole big bunch since you proclaimed it a “gem.”

THAT is why the sandbox was started; so we can press to an RFC/U, which is precisely in accordance with Wikipedia policy—and for the right reason. God it takes time, but it’s being worked on nonetheless and others are coming to help. Greg L (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Greg, this MfD issue is not settled, as it seems to be driving you to file an RFC/U about me. It really bothers me that anyone would think I lied or was deceptive. That's why I'm still trying to get some insight about it, and Elen's reaction - that that comment I made looked like a threat to not "cross me" - has been helpful. It's important to me that you not believe that I lied or was deceptive. Is there anything I can do to persuade you otherwise? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Deep breath GregL! Whatever you do, don't start to take it personally. There is potentially a less cynical explanation, although Born2cycle may not like it. A vital element in human communication is the ability to predict how another person will interpret and react to something we do or say. We use a number of tools such as immediate cues, knowledge of the individual, social convention, previous experience, a theory of mind and empathy. On the internet there are no immediate cues and you may not know the individual, so if you rely on those factors to get you through the communicating day, and are less strong in the empathy and less expansive in the theory of mind areas, run into significant communication difficulties. Add to this that on Wikipedia, the social convention is not clear (if you read WP:CIVIL you'd think it was describing two maiden aunts discussing a flower arrangement), and the socio-legal framework is in a constant flux, and you've just kicked out three quarters of what probably a lot of people normally use to temper their communications.

Taking what was said to Dicklyon as an example, it immediately put me in mind of the Godfather making an offer you can't refuse. It would probably have reminded some others of being called to the headmaster's study - "don't let me see you in here again, boy." Others will have thought of "I'm watching you, Wazowski. Always watching" from Monsters, Inc - or a real life experience with their own boss. It's clear that all of these are very negative, and are going to get a very negative response from the other party. However, if it doesn't bring anything like that to mind in the poster, they might think from previous experience (maybe they did this to a junior colleague who wasn't able to respond in a less than receptive way) that it would work. Same with the badgering - a cop or a philosopher trained in the Socratic method would use the technique in a specific setting (I have once described the Socratic method to a policeman, and had him explain that they called it 'verballing'), but would know from other cues not to use it when enquiring what was for dinner ("honey, if you ever want dinner again, you'll shut up right now...."). Without those cues, and without an expansive theory of mind, it might never occur that all it was doing was pissing some people off. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that may sound a bit cod psychology, but it's based on working with quite a few people here on the 'pedia. Born2cycle, if you are genuinely a bit bewildered by why people react the way you do, and are only just beginning to realise that how they are reacting is not primarily to do with the content but to do with the delivery, then this is your challenge. An intelligent person can craft a set of rules that helps them to avoid problems, but you have to work at it, and accept that you have to change the way you express yourself. Marriage guidance councillors do this a lot - the stakes and rewards are lower here, but it is probably still worth the effort if you want to give it a go. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoting B2C: Greg, this MfD issue is not settled. Uh-huh. And that view pretty much proves that GTBacchus, when he wrote …until you come along with your revolting attitude, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER let up, *might* have put his finger on the pulse of what makes B2C tick.

But I can’t afford to devote so much time to do what I think is right. For me, this wasn’t about *getting* B2C. I have an expression I use in real life: “He (or she or it or that) is a bug splat on my windshield of life. Press the pedal to the metal and move on.” I got started on this because I noticed Dicklyon embroiled in an MfD and then discovered that B2C had driven GTBacchus bat-shit crazy with frustration over his inability (and he’s an admin by the way) to deal with B2C’s tendentiousness (what B2C describes as but one of my faults is perhaps over exuberance in using facts, logic and reason to explain something to people who apparently just can't get it). I was motivated to take this one on because I had noticed that Wikipedia did not have an effective way to deal with chronically tendentious editors; there are policies against it, and an essay does a pretty darn good job of defining it, but the community seems to be galactically incompetent at dealing with it.

So I thought “I’ll roll up my sleeves, see if I can serve up a paradigm process for doing so, ignore B2C’s wikilawyering and arguing his petty issues until the heat death of the universe, and shepherd an RFC/U on B2C.

But as I mentioned, this is too time consuming. And I hate waking up early and finding B2C on my mind. So I’ve decided to not pursue the RFC/U. It’s my version of what GTBacchus did: get away from B2C to be happier (only GTBacchus pondered his bellybutton and B2C and decided his best recourse was to get off Wikipedia entirely). I’ll blank my sandbox and I’ll let the community deal with B2C and enjoy his stimulating and collegial participation in the collaborative writing phenomenon that is Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Like Thanks, Elen. I've added that to my collection of good advice for me. In this particular case, I think that Dicklyon took it relatively well - he just deleted the comment from his talk page with a dismissive summary comment[154]. By "relatively well" I don't mean that he took it very well in the absolute sense, just closer to the good end of the spectrum than how some others took it, particularly the editor who took it to MfD, a few others, and Greg in particular. In fact, at the MfD discussion, Dick was apparently so unbothered by the so-called "dirt" file that he initially voted to Keep and told Greg that he was "happy to ignore it"[155]. He later changed his mind and voted to Delete[156], but even then he never took nearly as hard a line about it as did Greg and the others. This is why I believe he understood I didn't mean it as a threat, and didn't take it as one. It's also why I was so perplexed by the much stronger reaction others had to it.

So, I think it comes down to this: I've dug myself quite a hole. Regardless of whether it's true or not, my behavior -- apparently mostly my delivery, and, I suspect, volume of commentary -- has caused me to be perceived by many as being tendentious, and people use this to justify waving AGF with me.

Several years ago someone filed an RFC/U about my alleged tendentiousness. The chief filer was an admin or later become one. In any case, they brought all this evidence and yet all five outside opinions unanimously said they saw no or very little evidence of problematic behavior. At the MfD almost everyone who weighed in had past experience with me and saw my behavior with that file as problematic, but outsider Sphilbrick voted to keep, understood what I was doing, and didn't see a problem. With a few exceptions, much of the input in the AN discussion was divided almost entirely based on whether people had disagreed with me in the past (if they had, they were very likely to vote in favor of the ban, if not, then opposed). So obviously I leave a bad taste in people's mouths when I disagree with them. Learning to disagree in an agreeable way... I guess that's what this is about. A challenge indeed.

Anyway, thank you very much for your advice, and letting me vent. Hopefully I will improve because of all this. Please never hesitate to give me advice or a suggestion about delivery, or anything else for that matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C, if you want to know how I felt, it was "annoyed" by your obviously hollow threat. When I ignored it by reverting with summary "Nack", you added a complaint about that. I hope you kept a copy of your diffs so you can go back and review the reasons why I was commenting on your behavior. And review your distortion of fact in saying that I would "revert a change without reading and evaluating it first." If you're interested in improving, put some energy into listening to complaints about your behavior. And by listening, I don't mean always coming back with "I don't understand; can explain exactly what rule I violated?" Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I honestly feel like I'm not understanding something. On Dec 21 at 00:07 you reverted the change in question[157]. At 00:09 you wrote: "I haven't even looked at what you're proposing or what it's implications are beyond the fact that it seems to bear on an argument that you are presently in." [158]. Isn't that reverting without reading and evaluating first? And remember that this is a situation in which my edit was accompanied with a fairly detailed explanation/justification at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost. Here we are over a month later and, so far as I know, you still have not responded substantively to what I said there, or how I (or Kotniski, and others, subsequently, multiple times) justified it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, isn't it disruptive or even a kind of a NPA violation to object to a proposal based on who is making the proposal rather than the content of the proposal[159]? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good grief, B2C; don’t you know when to let up? No one here is going to play your games anymore, where you continually raise the same tired old issues and dare people to chase each one down and prove them false one by one; that’s just playing your game, which amounts to “ignore facts and fervently wish that people are retards who can’t see the truth.” I note your propensity to “sum things up” in a manner that always manages to look like “So, everyone who has a problem with me are pretty much those who disagree with me and… so Elen… what you’re saying is that if I just deliver my message better, then that will solve everything.” No, it won’t. Your summaries are either self-serving posturing for later use, or you are once again wrenching your shoulder out of its socket as you pat yourself on the back.

  In particular, your “put a pretty pink ribbon on your message” conveniently fails to acknowledge or address GTBacchus’s complaint about you: …until you come along with your revolting attitude, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER let up. Is that the first time on Wikipedia you heard that sort of complaint? Do you care to address that one?

  The bottom line is this: you’re like the pit bull that had no damned clue when to quit. And your pathological tendency to deflect such criticisms with things like All I can figure is that you're annoyed by my ability to successfully build consensus, and this royal jewel: but one of my faults is perhaps over exuberance in using facts, logic and reason to explain something to people who apparently just can't get it make people want to puke. Now…

  My prediction is that you will be hauled up for another ANI or RfC or RFC/U in the near future and somewhere in there will be a profoundly frustrated editor who had foolishly thought he could make a hobby of Wikipedia but had the misfortune of crossing paths with you, only to be fed a metric ton of Iranian-centrifuged, weapons-grade bullonium about how the only *possible* reason he could be having difficulty with you is because he must actually be “annoyed with your ability to successfully build consensus and exhibit inescapable logic.” Now I’m going to sit back and give you all the rope you need to prove me right. Try putting this one in your hall of fame of good quotes. Greg L (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Greg, do you believe this kind of diversionary personal attack might be persuasive? Diversions aside, my questions above to Dicklyon stand unanswered. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your rhetorical question suggests, unfortunately, that it was not persuasive. That’s unfortunate. I note also that my good-faith request that you address how it is you provoked Admin:GTBacchus to the extent that he quit Wikipedia remains unanswered. And that is arguably a more important question than the one you asked Dicklyon. Greg L (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The best I can do is I don't know, but I can explain that. Of course I know the reasons he has given... having to do with my treating issues too seriously, etc. I presume that he believes those reasons are true. Whether that's really why he quit, or if even he really quit (as opposed to taking another break), probably nobody knows, perhaps not even he; certainly not me. Human motivation is far more complex than that. Fuck, I don't even know why I'm here. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Very good response. But I can tell you are frustrated right now. I can also tell you seem intent on trying to figure out how to walk through the mine field that is human interaction. Goodbye Greg L (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A shout (sotto voce)

User:Target for Today is presently under discussion at ANI regarding rampant category creation, where you have opined.

One of TfT's creations, Category:Former military facilities in Pennsylvania, is at cfd with so far a unanimous 'No' (6 out of 6). Today TfT has created "14:08, 22 January 2012 (diff | hist) N Category:Former military facilities in New Jersey ‎ (sibling of Category:Former military facilities in Pennsylvania) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]".

Likewise Category:Cold War sites established in 1951 is unlikly to survive at cfd and today Tft has created 2 more siblings.

This is exactly the behaviour that precipitated the ANI: creation of strings of unnecessary categories which do not survive cfd and persistent refusal to discuss anything. Oculi (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I block myself?

Is there a Wikipedia policy against being irreverent in the evening??? Greg L (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should go thrash yourself with nettles...:) At once. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso edit warring again

Back in July, you warned him here about edit warring, but now he's edit warring with what appears to be a new user, with incivil edit summaries, on Paul Morphy.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Both him and his "opponent" in the edit war have been reported to ANEW.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A "Whisper"

Hello, Elen. You have a message at User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions's talk page. I like this {{Whisperback}} - not as big and ugly as the {{tb}}...

As you're the other person who's been really active there, having noticed you'd been busy lately, I thought I'd gently nudge, in case you'd missed it. If you hadn't missed it, sorry, because that would make this a nag... I think... Begoon ^talk 05:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI about B2C

Hi Elen. I just thought I’d keep you in the loop about Born2cycle. He posted a “second warning” of harassment here on my talk page. He wasn’t appreciative of my pointing out here at WT:AT that he had more edits than anyone on that talk page and that protracted amount of posting was wearing people out. I intend to sit back now and watch him really take to heart everything that’s been told to him this last week from various people—including you—and applies all that advise to practice as he interacts in a new, collegial fashion in the collaborative writing environment that is Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI for Rich Farmbrough

There is a thread about R.F. on ANI right now [160]. It's worth noticing that even though he knows about the thread (he commented in it), he appears to still be carrying out the disputed edits... — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Keeping order at WP:TITLE

Hi Elen.

As you know there has been a good deal of trouble with the core policy page WP:TITLE in the last month. Born2cycle has been at the centre of it all, and indeed may be seen as the cause – through his editing to restore a version of the recognisability criterion that had been superseded in open discussion in May 2011, without dissent. Now, I am aware that others will have a different view of history, and will indignantly repudiate the summary just given. So let me now cut to the immediate problem, since life and the day are short.

Just as your recent administrative encounter with B2C was coming to a conclusion, he started an RFC at WT:TITLE. It is still active (a wordy, micromanaged RFC that has some slim hope of moving things forward, though I would have done it entirely differently myself). Instead of working toward a consensual outcome, one of the commenters in the RFC, JCScaliger, decided to revert the recognisability guideline to the form he and B2C preferred (see this edit and the half dozen on each side of it, including my own). Indeed, JCS rather disruptively reverted the whole page (with unrelated changes included) to its state at 21 December (soon after B2C's initial controversial edit). This was in direct contradiction to earlier direction by admin Kwami, who then reverted JCScaliger. And you can see the rest.

My own role at the page has always been merely to clarify wording, links, and the like – except when I see blatantly non-consensual editing of vital policy, such as PMAnderson's when he sought to word its provisions in a way that would diminish the role of WP:MOS.

Kwami's integrity has been impugned for his attempts to keep order (see his talkpage; but consult the history, since he may have removed the whole dismal discussion). I have acted before to support what he had restored as the most recent stable version. And despite threats against him, and the continuing threats of litigious action against me that impel me to stay off the talkpage till they are retracted, I am right now about to edit again to restore the page to that same state. Kwami, intimidated and compromised by unfair accusations, may now find it difficult to act at all in the case.

I hope that you will take things in hand in the way you see fit. I put myself in some peril, because the page needs stability and above all should not be edited through bullying and chaotic process. Please bear that in mind if you do decide to use your knowledge of events and participants in any intervention you may deem appropriate. I don't care so much how details of the page stand for now, so long as they are not left that way through wikilawyering and brute intimidation.

Thank you!

Noetica^Tea? 04:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)