User talk:Elonka

Vandalism to my talk page

Hi Elonka, a user named User:Phenomenon8980 has been repeatedly blanking my talk page. I have left several messages on his/her talk page concerning talk page guidelines. He/She is angry because I redirected a character page Melanie Layton, back to Days of Our Lives because she does not meet WP:NOTE. I told the user I had no personal grievances against him/her, but I am just trying to follow rules. I have been civil, and not posted any threatening messages. This user just continues to blank my page though. Please advise. If you are the wrong person to contact, please tell me who is. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Bish got it. Though, I see you were edit-warring with Phenomenon at the Melanie Layton article. Instead of just going back and forth like that, a better option is to file a quick AfD. Also, please read WP:BITE and WP:VANDAL#NOT... Phen looks like s/he may have the makings of a good editor who could be really helpful at the Soaps Project, so it's better to try and nurture potential talent, instead of just tussling and accusing them of vandalism. Remember, we need all the good help we can get!  :) --Elonka 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I do need your help filling out a request for deletion. I would also ask that you again warn Phenonmenon8980 to stop harrassing me. I have been nothing but civil to him her, and am not trying to have a conflict. I am just trying to make this site reliable, while he/she continues the verbal assault. Thank you so much for all your help in this matter. Rm994 (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the page, tagged it as needing references, and posted a note at the talkpage about a possible way to handle it. Hopefully we can have a civil discussion on how to proceed. If this doesn't work, we can always go to an AfD. --Elonka 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help with this. I don't know what s/he is actually talking about, as my last post was yesterday. It seems to me that this user simply does not understand the rules regarding talk page etiquette, civility, or the rules of articles. My only intention was to help s/he understand the rules. I believe I was civil enough. I have made my contribution to the Melanie Layton talk page, and that is where it will end. I will not engage in any more debates with him/her. 3 editors have now suggested that it be merged with minor characters. It was never my intention to anger this user, simply just to explain the rules. Again...I REALLY appreciate all your help. Rm994 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I redirected the Melanie Layton article. Thanks again for your help. Rm994 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. If it gets reverted again, take it to AfD, or ping me and I'll file it. --Elonka 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Melanie Layton was reverted back, so how should we proceed? Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've initiated an AfD. — TAnthony^Talk 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Email from User:HabsMTL to User: Phenomenon8980. (email removed)

I am writing on behalf of Phenomenon8980. He has not contacted User: RM994 for any reason since they've had their conflict. Phenomenon8980 is highly upset and plans to now continue harrassing both users if he is not apologized to. It is clear that noone is interested in letting Phenomenon 8980 take the high road. 131.247.244.190 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please forward the email to me: elonka@aol.com --Elonka 16:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification of your involvement at chiropractic

Per WP:UNINVOLVED: Uninvolved admins An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, were involved in revert wars, or are under their own sanctions for that topic area, they do not qualify as uninvolved.

Elonka has been involved in a content dispute with significant editor of this article.[1][2][3]. Special:Contributions/Elonka is not qualified as uninvolved. QuackGuru 18:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed the general debate on Chiropractic, but the three diffs QuackGuru provided above look very mild to me. I don't see that they show Elonka can't be neutral regarding Eubulides. We allow admins to discuss issues on talk pages, and we allow them to comment on the actions of others, without them becoming 'involved'. The three specific points you mention are (a) significant editor of the article, (b) involved in revert wars, (c) under topic sanctions for that area: are any of those met? She has not edited the article since July 8. When she does edit the article, she does scary things like insertion of square brackets. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Those diffs show Elonka address behavior at the article in question, not judging content. Come back with diffs that show her adding or removing actual content or making value determinations on content and I'll re-consider. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has participated in edit war against a significant contributor, Eubulides.[4][5] QuackGuru 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:AN#Chiropractic, I recommend keeping the discussion there. --Elonka 20:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've followed Chiro for quite a while as mostly a very removed bystander. But it's on my watchlist, and I sometimes scan the arguments on the talk page, and sometimes monitor edits for obvious POVs or to see if I can stop an edit war. I never even noticed Elonka there at all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some concern

Elonka, I have some concerns about the way that this appears to be proceeding.

• You created the Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page at 15:35, 24 September 2008
  • There you list yourself at that time as an uninvolved adminstrator
  • The noticeboard thread at that time was thus
• Admin noticeboard thread initiated by you at 17:14, 24 September 2008
• Your notification at the Chiro talk page was 00:43, 26 September 2008
  • The discussion on the notice board at this time was thus
  • To state that there was "rough consensus" at that time is, well, franky untenable:
    • Of the participants who had taken place in that time frame, four had raised objections (Risker, Eubulides, Mathsci, and CrohnieGal)
    • Four had made "in principle" agreement (Matthew Brown, FT2, Sam Blacketer, Guy)
  • You next take part in the thread you created at 00:51, 26 September 2008 were you announce that "It looks like we're cleared to proceed."
    • Yes, it's not a vote
    • Yes, we do tend to take Committee member's opinions more seriously
    • Yes, it still looks really really bad close a decision for which you've already made the page.

I'd ask, in light of all of the above, that you remove yourself from the list of uninvolved adminstrators.

brenneman 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're diffing one of my posts there, that I tweaked[6] and then deleted shortly thereafter.[7] I'm in agreement with you that it was worded too strongly, which is why I completely reworked it. The final version was here.[8] --Elonka 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the updated link. However, having looked further into this in these last few minutes (and given that you've not responded to the bulk of my message) I'll repeat the request: Please do remove yourself from the "uninvolved" list, and I'd appreciate it if you could explicitly disavow the use of any adminstratorive privledge at all with respect to that article. - brenneman 02:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

<informal> Some times I come off sounding like an officious jerk. I don't talk like that at all, but sadly for me when I type exacly what I would say... So please try and read the above in the best light possible, without there being any HINT of nastyness. </informal> - brenneman 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I assure you that I have no preference on the article content, and I am quite comfortable that I would be able to use admin tools from a position of neutrality. As for your point about the Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page, you are correct that I made it a couple days earlier. This was because I was using it as a scratchpad to gather information about the involved editors there, as I was considering what might be the best way to proceed. But I'm still not seeing why you think it might show any bias on my part? And anyway, this may all be moot, since no restrictions may be required anyway. As long as there is no disruption, and the article returns to a state of relative stability, I'm happy. :) If things stay stable for a couple weeks, we can probably delete the log page and all move along to other wiki projects. --Elonka 03:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned when you come to the noticeboard and appear to be asking for community input, but evidence suggests only input supporting your assertion is noted. (This is not in any way a slight on you or yours, the tendancy towards confirmation bias is very strong in most people.)

So then, let us approach this from another tack: Almost from the moment that the thread appeared on the Adminstrator's noticeboard, concern was expressed not that the article was to become "special" but that you were to be riding herd. Strong, clearly expressed, concern. I've not seen much indication that you're taking any of that concern on board. At all.

Of course you are comfortable that you'd be appropiately neutral. Assuming good faith and all, you'd not have put your name on the list if you weren't. (Even if I were to assume bad faith, with you cackling and rubbing your hands over the keyboard, you'd still say you were neutral.)

I'm also concerned by evasive answers to my very direct requests. I say this in the spirit of open communication and honesty: Your responses read to me as "weaselly." (If that's a word.) But again, as my NB above states, I'm aware of the limitations of this mode of communication.

I agree that the point is moot. Given the level of input you've already received this time (that your're apparently rejecting) w.r.t. Chiro, and reflecting on the terribly messy "recall" outcome, it would be good if this were explicit: Under what circumstances would you be willing to remove yourself from some putative future "Uninvolved Admin" list?

brenneman 04:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the above and some more fun at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Followup query, it appears that your involvement in this is likely going to be the cause of unnecessary contention and drahmahz. This is highly unfortunate, as I do not personally view many of the issues raised as a very big deal. However, it is not going to be a good use of either your time or the time of those who would object to deal with the resulting discussions. So, to avoid further drahmahz in this, I respectfully ask that your remove yourself from the list of uninvolved admins and do not apply any sanctions. Any input you have regarding the article will still be greatly appreciated, though. You should also feel free to disregard this request, so long as you are aware that moar drahmahz will likely result. Cheers, and happy editing. lifebaka++ 15:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I second Lifebaka's comments. If you will just change your status to that of an involved admin, and state that you will not personally hand out sanctions, but discuss them with other admins and let them decide, then I think you will be able to contribute more constructively without getting (unfairly) attacked all the time. I think you have had to put up with too many attacks and it needs to be avoided in the future. I also think your participation will be valuable. More eyes and all.... -- Fyslee / talk 05:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I found the perspective given by this BBC article and this Times article very useful in cutting through the endless wrangling about whether these reviews on spinal manipulation relate to chiropractic and this review article looks like a good model for the Wikipedia article. As admins I think we meed to guide the participants on the talkpages to summarize the general meaning of the sources, rather than endlessly arguing over their particular interpretations of the meaning of isolated quotes. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Amen. --Elonka 16:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor, the key question to me seems to be "How do reliable sources treat these reviews?" Since reliable sources from the general media, mainstream medical researchers and chiropractors all see these reviews as related to chiropractic, I don't agree with the argument that it would be original research for Wikipedia to treat them in the same way. I think we should just follow the sources and this seems to be what the article does. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, logged. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A note re stalking

Two remarks on ChrisO’s page seem to require review. They were made by Tundrabuggy. The first is what appears to be a kind of ‘administrative review’ with an implicit warning. here

As you know, ChrisO is a classicist, who obtained his degree studying under one of the major historians of antiquity. Tundrabuggy’s page shows no record of having edited articles on antiquity, or knowledge of the field. Clearly from this remark, Tundrabuggy has undertaken a detailed review of ChrisO’s work on several related articles dealing with antiquity where the latter has formal qualifications, and now raises concerns about bias. Secondly, when challenged on this, Tundrabuggy admits he was ‘invited’ to edit these articles by another editor here Both the original remark, and the admission he was invited in, without apparent knowledge of the subject ChrisO has formal qualifications in, do not strike me as being free of a certain niggling spirit. It may not be, but is certainly is strongly suggestive of wikistalking, and a word of caution is, I should think, due. That they edit in I/P articles is coincidental. This overlap is not.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Language

An anonymous user continues to revert the reference number of Turkish speakers here[9]. Could you look into it? Thanks! Kansas Bear (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a ref tag to the infobox, and a note to the anon's talkpage. If they show up again, I recommend an immediate post to their talkpage to try and engage them in conversation, and ask them where they're getting the number from. Who knows, they may have a good source! --Elonka 15:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Blythe Brown‎

There are still issues with this article, which I have noted at its talk page. In particular one of the online references you cite does not work for me. Meanwhile I make two procedural suggestions.

• When you make a single edit to essentially revert three separate edits made for three separate reasons, individually documented at the talk page and each with an edit summary explaining the reason, you choose an edit summary more apt than "copyediting".
• When you choose to criticise the conduct or doubt the good faith of another editor you do so (if you must do so at all) on that editors talk page rather than on the talk page of an article. Please recall Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts — so often the best — I realise the tone of those comments may come across as unduly hostile. But there are still problems with the article, and I'm still not happy at the way this is playing out. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to participate in improving the article, by reading the existing sources, locating additional sources, and expanding what's there. --Elonka 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And I encourage you to join me in acknowledging that personal remarks (I refer to this in particular) are not helpful in building the encyclopaedia. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychic

Would you mind taking a look at Psychic. Shoemaker's Holiday seem a to be a trifle exuberant in deleting without discussion. And many thanks(olive (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Yup, I'm taking a look, though it's going to take me some time to come up to speed. --Elonka 03:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro Se archiving

While I'm sure you're trying to be helpful, I'm not sure that this archiving action was really completely a good idea. In particular, you removed conversation from today. I'd prefer you not archive my commentary quite that quickly. Kay had finally produced a halfway decent paragraph, and your archiving it away undermines our efforts to reform her. Please restore that part of your archiving, thanks. Also, please leave the time set to 14 days for the bot. In fact, why not just let the bot do this work? ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I was careful not to archive anything which had an October date on it,[10] and I doublechecked: The word October doesn't even appear on the archive page: Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 3. --Elonka 04:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ... please review the diffs I gave you and look for my signature. But in any case, I suspect your time may be more profitably be used on less mundane things than archiving talk pages, it's a waste of your considerable talents. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see the problem, and have done my best to fix. Not sure what happened, though my guess is that somehow I started the archive from an "old" version of the page, which is why the newer messages vanished. Sorry for the glitch! --Elonka 04:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your message

I will be more careful. The problem was compounded by some sort of problem affecting Science Apologist. He inadvertently reverted much further than he'd intended due to some sort of browser or WP caching issue. When the actual state of the article became apparent to him, he stated that the edits he had made were not the edits he would have intended. Bob (QaBob) 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a problem with an out-of-date cache and an unresponsive software glitch on the wiki-end. I actually never intentionally reverted once! Elonka, you seem to be falling into a classic administrator trap similar to what others have warned you about in the past in your RfCs: namely you tend to create problems when none exist and ignore problems when they do exist. I think this is in part due to the fact that you aren't very thorough in your investigations of the full course of a discussions about edits. The best thing to do in these circumstances is to look at the user's contributions. In this case, I'm almost certain you did not do this because there was some very illuminating discussion between myself and other editors that happened outside of Talk:Psychic that you seemed to miss completely. To summarize, when you feel like you need to give sanction, you should follow the following procedure:

1. Determine what the sum-total of the edits that appear to be controversial were. That requires taking long-range diffs from when the person first started editing the article to when the person stopped editing the article.
2. Look at the talk page and see what was discussed.
3. Look at the user's contributions and see if any discussion were happening at noticeboards, user talk pages, etc.
4. Make a list of the other user's who were involved in the supposed "altercation".
5. Repeat steps 1-3 for each user.
6. When posting warnings or advisories on user talk pages, include a diff that clearly indicates the problematic behavior/actions. (The diffs you posted on my page were so ambiguous as to be almost laughable. If you had posted them to WP:3RN the report would have been closed immediately as no violation.)

If you do this, people will be much more likely to be okay with you. You might consider getting an administrative mentor to help with this.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

You'll recall that a month ago I gave you a list of images you uploaded which seemed problematic. In particular, four were non-free images where free images could potentially be obtained, contrary to the guidelines at Wikipedia:NON-FREE#Images 2, Unacceptable use, item 12: Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. Since you didn't dispute their status after your acknowledgment, I assume you agree with me?

• Image:KimZetter1.jpg
• Image:RyanConferido.jpg
• Image:Jerry Jacks Bobby Spencer.jpg
• Image:SteveMeretzky.jpg

In addition, some of them have no fair-use rationale. I'm giving you this heads-up since you have previously expressed dismay about having these issues crop up suddenly, but I currently see no reason not to propose their deletion. Feel free to let me know if you think I've got this wrong, I don't want to waste everyone's time on pointless multiple IFDs. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jerry Jacks/Bobby Spencer one is worth keeping, since it shows a soap couple that is no longer in existence. That the actors are still alive, is not the relevant point, since the picture is being used to illustrate the characters, not the actors. The others were valid fair use at the time they were uploaded, but since "Fair use" is a moving target on Wikipedia, they seem to have slipped outside the envelope. --Elonka 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it would be valid for the character but not the actor then. Richard Pinch (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged three of them as orfud. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Inflaming the situation

What the dilly-o is this, Elonka? Are you trying to start a fight? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for involving other administrators. In light of our dispute, I think it prudent that you stay away from Psychic and leave the administering up to someone else. I'm getting really tired of you picking on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The idea that anyone who has ever disagreed with ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or his edits is somehow precluded from interacting with him is ridiculous on its face. Don't be intimidated by personal attacks such as the false accusation that you are 'picking on' him. Dlabtot (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out of the woodwork, Dlabtot. Always nice to see you show up to poison the well. By the by, I'm not asking anyone to stop "interacting" with me. I'm asking Elonka to stop picking on me. To claim this as a "personal attack" on Elonka is absurd on the face of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ScienceApologist

I have nominated Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ScienceApologist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the category was more than is needed, so I went ahead and deleted it. I was not intending it as an attack, I was just trying to "fill in the blanks" on the sockpuppetry paperwork. My apologies if it appeared to be excessive. --Elonka 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed, that was a classy move. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Are you focusing on science editors for some reason? Because it appears you are and if so, you need to explain to the community why.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. I do try to keep an ear open for where I can help out with dispute resolution. Most commonly I either spot these on one of the noticeboards, or someone asks for help on my talkpage. I also run across them every so often via my archiving work. Archiving is one of those relaxing activities for me: I try to keep the category clear at Category:Archive requests, and when that's empty, I look around for other pages that need help. For example, I'll check Special:RecentChanges, filter by the "Talk" namespace, and then look for anything that's getting large comments (+1,###). If that page is over 100K, I'll archive it. It's often the case that when an article is in dispute, the talkpage scrolls fairly rapidly, so when I'm archiving a large page, I'll sometimes check to see if there's a dispute where I can help out as an admin. I don't feel like I'm focusing on science-related disputes, and the editors who are working in the Israel-Palestine topic area would probably agree! In any case, my contribs are an open book, feel free to look for yourself: Elonka (talk · contribs). --Elonka 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I accept your answer. But, and it's a big but (that wasn't a pun), I keep noting that you seem to always be supporting individuals who, at best, lack credibility on the project or could be worse. I'm not going to say SA is misunderstood, but he puts up with withering attacks from a lot of people--maybe he deserves some support too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned

At WP:ANI#Harassment. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_.28fourth.29 which Jehochman opened but which he has said you could comment further on. I plan to close this case without further comment if the supporting material does not substantiate the need for a check. The ANI thread is good background reading. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to post, but it took me awhile to get through the edit conflicts! I've posted my summary now though. --Elonka 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However, I owe you an apology, I made an unwarranted inference and jumped to an unsound conclusion. I am sorry for that. I've corrected myself on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist#results but I wanted to explicitly apologise directly as well. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. :) And I apologize if I seemed a bit snappish about it. I'm probably a bit over-sensitive to negative comments from you, because of your other recent "weasel" comment. But hopefully we can wipe the slate clean and start fresh? --Elonka 13:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Phenom

OK, I'm assuming you've read most of today's (and recent) comments on Phenom's page, the Current Days characters page, and my sockpuppet reports. I know I tend to go from friendly and helpful to businesslike and cold quicker than is probably preferred, and I was certainly relentless in this situation, but at some point I'd be interested if you thought I should've handled this differently. Feel free to not hold back any punches ;) — TAnthony^Talk 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I thought you handled yourself with remarkable restraint, especially considering the quantity of abuse that was being hurled your way! So good job on that.  :) I think we all went the extra mile to try and assume good faith and smooth out any misunderstandings with that editor, but sometimes there's just nothing that can be done. Looking back in hindsight on the entire situation, the main big thing that probably could have been done differently, is that as soon as there was a challenge to the redirect, we could have gone straight to the AfD(s). Other than that, I think everyone did as well as could probably be expected with that kind of situation. --Elonka 13:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion about TV episode redirects

Hi, Elonka. It's been a while since the dispute about TV episode article naming, and I'm glad to see that you've been thriving on Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that there's a new (much smaller, I hope!) discussion about whether to keep the redirects that have "unnecessary" disambiguation or not — one of the byproducts of an early compromise move in that debate. The new discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Redirects, with related discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 8. Hope to see you there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW

Both yourself and NJGW seem to have stopped editing for a bit, but if you have a look at WP:AN the block looks questionable and there would be no harm in the goodwill gesture of an early unblock. If you can process that in the next hour or so it would be greatly appreciated. . dave souza, talk 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at the noticeboard. --Elonka 21:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking NJGW, I've commented at that noticeboard. . dave souza, talk 08:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for injunction

WP:AE#Request for injunction in Pseudoscience/Homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Please review WP:OUTING in reference to your recent edits. This sets an extremely bad example, especially for an administrator that is helping problematic editors avoid behavioral problems. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, I haven't outed anyone. Outing is when you announce on-wiki, someone's otherwise unknown-to-wiki private information. But SA's information is well-publicized. He's openly provided it in an on-wiki interview,[11] it's clearly listed at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and it's several other places as well.[12][13] You accusing me of violating WP:OUTING is about as silly as if I were to accuse you of outing me by typing the word "Elonka". --Elonka 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Please demonstrate that you've actually read what WP:OUTING actually says, rather than simply giving an interpretation that backs your actions but not written policy. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia.

If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information as this would give the person posting the information – and anyone else who saw the page – feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently to correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and the users blocked for outing should have it made clear that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.

Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

This is grounds for an indef-block. QuackGuru 02:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In the contents of User:Zvika/Interview/ScienceApologist supplied by the interview subject, it would appear that User:ScienceApologist had "outed" himself, which would meet the "unless that editor voluntarily posts this information" standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Folks, you're missing a big point here even though you're pointing to the policy yourselves: unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Ronz, QuackGuru please consider that your dislike of Elonka's work in areas that you've been involved in disputes may be coloring your interactions. This line of complaint and the rather extreme step of calling for a block, is really off base. Shell ^babelfish 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist would appear to disagree with QuackGuru's assessment. --Elonka 02:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by an admin what the hostoric norm is on this. QuackGuru, Ronz, you're both mistaken. Elonka, you're slightly mistaken also. The historic norm is probably something like this; you may take this and use it as you will:

Broadly speaking, it's discourteous to use a person's real name (or any other name they use) if they have indicated a preference to be known by some specific name on-wiki. If someone said "I know I posted my name before but please do not use it, and call me by my username", users are expected to completely respect that wish (possible exception: if the old name is needed to be specified, for dispute handling purposes). Likewise gratuitous mention of a name ("You shouldn't edit like that, Michael, as your school at Las Palmas might not like it") may be construed as uncivil, harassment, or a threat if that is a reasonable interpretation of the tone.

But that is not the same as outing. Historically, a rough guideline is that a user who has stated their name on-wiki, is presumed to be fine with their name being known or referenced on-wiki (in a non-threatening manner), until they actually say "please don't".

I think that's about the norm. Hopefully that may help a bit in background. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me that a person does not want this type of information released. QuackGuru 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru: If SA didnt want to release that information, he could have sought oversight as soon as he realised he wasnt logged in. ScienceApologist‎'s real name also appears on Wikipedia 14 times at present according to Google. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If SA wants to vanish, so be it. If he wants to remove his real name from Wikipedia, that should also be possible (i.e. by talking to Zvika quietly; admins and/or oversighters can also help). However, it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to put our collective head in the sand, and pretend that he is currently anoymous. Elonka didnt "out" or harrass SA; she commented on topic on a deletion discussion. If anything, Elonka's comment is very helpful as it indicates how much work SA needs to do in order to put the geni back in the bottle. If the MfD discussion later needs to be sanitised a little, that can also be achieved. Not only is it incorrect to accuse Elonka of acting inappropriately, capitalising on this event to brew trouble against Elonka is also unhelpful to SA if he does want to put the genie back in the bottle; additional drama never helps when someone is wanting to quietly put the geni back in the bottle. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reducing disruption

The key to reducing disruption isn't to go back and right old wrongs or to deal a slew of warnings. Digging through old contributions doesn't "reduce disruption", it re-opens wounds. "Reducing disruption" isn't about righting great wrongs, it's about lowering the temperature.

Of course, if you really want to reduce disruption, it's important to approach the matter fairly. At present, you look like you're taking sides. I'm sure it isn't your intent, but your current course of action seems to be heating things up, not cooling them down. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)