User talk:Elonka - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Friday (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 17 June 2008 (→Oh no: it was fine before). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:54, 17 June 2008 by Friday (talk | contribs) (→Oh no: it was fine before)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

possible WP:WORKGROUP

hi you left a comment on Aegean Macedonians suggesting a WP:WORKGROUP How would i be able to establish one to deal with the problem of Slav/Macedonian/Greek City names in Greece? There has been much revertinr and no established protocol? If you could get back to me in setting it up it would be appreciated. Thanx. PMK1 (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started it? What would an appropriate message be for informing other people of the discussion? Like the "Please speak english" or "afd" ones? Thanks, i have also tried to include both POV's. PMK1 (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah

Protection lifted. :) Thanks for letting me know. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, sounds like a plan! :) I find most editors can be reasonable, though I'm watching three fully-protects at the moment and things are not panning out that way. One's at MedCom, one's at ArbCom and one's, well, just plain controversial! So-much-so that every time I do CAT:PER rounds there's always a request! This one seems less controversial though, and editing restrictions will likely work for al-Durrah. :D Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I sure was surprised when I found myself banned for three months, and went to MZMMcBride's talk page to find that you had already asked him to lift the ban. I honestly thought that that was a good NPOV edit! There is no question that the killing was reported. I studiously avoided saying "reportedly" killed, which has a different flavor altogether. What should I do now? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to 2nd that. You are acting as a mediator in this article or at least as a guardian of good faith editing. If you think the edit was not in good faith by all means remove the editor who did it but if you think the edit is a good faith edit (based on the rules you set) - there is no reason for someone to come in second guess you and remove an editor for 3 month….There have been far worse edits on this article and that specific edit was actually trying to correct them. Editing[REDACTED] is a collaborative work, we are asked to be bold but not engage in edit war. This edit was bold, accurate and no indication it was any part of an edit war.--Julia1987 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Standby. :) Stay in observer status for now, and feel free to work on other articles for a bit, while I get this worked out. :) --El on ka 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to find something to do, I recommend Category:Articles that need to be wikified, there's usually lots to do there. And getting other articles into your contrib list will be a good thing right now. :) --El on ka 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy

(initial post copied from User talk:MZMcBride)

MZMcBride, can I please ask you to reconsider your topic ban of TundraBuggy? I've been trying, as an uninvolved administrator, to regain control of the situation at Muhammad al-Durrah, so I'd like to make sure that admins are speaking with one voice there. See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing. TundraBuggy was actually doing what I'd asked him to do. --El on ka 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. : - ) He was making an point-y and unproductive edit that did nothing other than incite other users. At my count, we currently have 2,407,460 articles on the English Misplaced Pages alone. Tundrabuggy is free to edit any of them, except this one, as he's proven to be incapable of good judgment and collaborative editing when dealing with this particular subject. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I had asked an editor to do something, he did it, and then another admin (yourself) came along and put a 90-day topic ban on him. This seems excessive to me, and it also undermines my authority in the situation. I don't want to to just overrule you or take things to ANI or AE... Can we find a compromise here? --El on ka 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider? I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean. A slight inconvenience for one particular editor doesn't seem like something that needs too much discussion. Tundrabuggy is banned from this particular article for making edits that are unproductive and unhelpful. You seem to think that he added the word 'reported' on your say-so, but I see no indication of that. I don't intend to wheel war, however, I also don't intend to allow users to be disruptive. Tundrabuggy's edits are disruptive. As such, he won't be making them any further. And really, I'd like to hear what he has to say on the issue (if anything) before others come jumping to his defense. More than likely, he knew that his actions would result in a response like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me explain things in a bit more detail, then hopefully it will make more sense... The Muhammad al-Durrah article has been in a state of conflict for quite some time. As a result of edit-warring, the page was protected. An AE (Arbitration Enforcement) thread was also started. The conflict also came up at ANI, as some of the involved editors are administrators (ChrisO, SlimVirgin). One of the issues was that ChrisO (an involved editor) was placing editors such as Tundrabuggy under restrictions, even though he really didn't have the authority to do that since he was so involved (see the ANI thread for more discussion on this). My own connection is that I'm a member of the ArbCom-appointed Working Group on cultural and ethnic edit wars, and I occasionally help out at as an uninvolved administrator at AE. I've also been running some experiments on using new techniques to address persistent ethnic disputes on Misplaced Pages. For example, I've been quite successful with moderating some very complex disputes between Hungarian and Slovakian editors. (see User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment), where I started with a situation of near chaos, with many extraordinarly frustrated editors, and new admin threads starting up every couple days, but within a month I was able to get things calmed down to the point where it's about ready to stamp "resolved" on the whole thing. I was also one of the major writers of Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Dealing with disputes.

I first heard of the Muhammad al-Durrah article a few days ago, when I spotted the thread at ANI. I also saw at ANI that a couple of the involved admins (such as ChrisO) were practically begging for an uninvolved admin to come over and help. I hadn't gotten into major Israeli-Palestinian disputes before (I've been avoiding it, to be honest), but I decided to try and help with this one. So, I posted as much as the AE thread, and offered my services at the article talkpage. Some of the key participants accepted me as a mediator/moderator, and so over the last couple days, I've been working on identifying all of the involved parties, and then gradually trying to "cat herd" them into the direction of civility and constructive editing. I hadn't issued any blocks, but I'd been giving mild cautions and "nudges" to multiple editors. In my opinion, Tundrabuggy was actually one of the more cooperative and civil ones and was responding well to my guidance.

Earlier today, I contacted the admin who had placed protection on the page, and asked him to lift protection. He did, and I posted my list of editing restrictions on the talkpage, where I was encouraging editors to, in a nutshell, "Stay civil, don't revert, change instead of delete". There was disagreement about whether or not this was the best course, but I stood firm, and Tundrabuggy was the first editor to dip his toe into the water, by changing one word. MZMcBride then appeared out of nowhere, and slapped a 90-day topic ban on Tundrabuggy. :/

I acknowledge that MZM was acting in good faith, but it's not making my job easier, since he has inadvertently undermined the mediation that I was doing. So, at this point, what I would prefer if (1) MZMcBride could lift this restriction; and (2) if he could check with me before placing further restrictions on anyone on that page, as that helps me to maintain the necessary authority to get things calmed down. Again, I understand that MZM thought that he was trying to help stabilize the situation. However, it's at cross-purposes with what I'm trying to do. And like I said, Tundrabuggy was voluntarily moderating his behavior to what I was asking.

Does that help explain? MZM, if you have any questions, please let me know. :) --El on ka 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, MZM, how about this: I agree with you that Tundrabuggy could definitely be a more trusted editor, if he were to spend some time editing other articles. However, I'd like to go ahead and allow Tundrabuggy to participate at the al-Durrah talkpage, since his recent comments were useful and civil. After he's also edited a few other articles, I would also like to take it upon myself to review the article ban at that time, rather than waiting out the full 90 days. If you have any objections to this, let me know. --El on ka 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

From looking at my contributions, it's no secret that I bounce around from place to place nearly inexplicably. Most of it has to do with being on IRC a fair bit and overhearing various conversations. Someone had mentioned an ArbCom case and I looked into it, and eventually discovered that particular page. The page history and the talk page pretty much speak for themselves. Just yesterday someone mentioned an article on Cops and robbers (game), which I cleaned up only to have an administrator speedy delete a bit later.

I should take this opportunity to apologize to you as well. I realize that you volunteered to step into this mess, and I, and I'm sure other, appreciate that you did. And I didn't intend to step on your toes or undermine your authority in the situation. And, of course, the comment I left on my talk page was meant to be brusque, but not impolite. That being said, the state of the project seems to be quite poor. When one editor is banned for a few months from one article, all of the focus, energy, and attention shifts to that rather than the larger problem. Which is why I eventually simply had to (try to) stop the madness on my talk page and try to get people to focus on the bigger picture.

I hope the solutions you implement on that talk page work well and make this project a better place to edit. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

On Tundrabuggy

My comment on that is simply this: to note that ChrisO did not sanction anyone as an involved admin, he simply notified them of the case, and to point out that when protection is lifted it is not good practice for a single-purpose account to attempt, using weasel wording, to spark off exactly the same revert-war as before. That is not good-faith editing: even from a regular I would be very skeptical. From a SPA it's plain out of order.

Under those circumstances you cannot say MZM acted improperly. I would do exactly the same if this were the Balkans or Armenia-Azeri. I simply do not think we will make process on the Al-Durrah page with SPAs running around. Yes, there's a legitimate debate to have, no, tendentious SPAs who game the system will not help. We're better off without Tundra, trust me. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tundra was doing exactly what I had asked people to do. It was not appropriate for him to be rewarded with an immediate 90-day topic ban. --El on ka 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how making an obviously inflammatory edit is doing what you'd asked people to do. The revert-war was over "reportedly", he stuck in "reported". Classic weasellling. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am regarding the situation with more AGF. --El on ka 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I did want to make the point here that Elonka had asked us to 'go ahead and edit', not to make a particular edit. This point seems to be misunderstood. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

re:mentoring

Thanks for the clarification regarding voting. I got the original concept from this page, where it is referred to a number of times as 'votes' and 'voting'. I do appreciate what your explanation however and take it seriously. Thanks again. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in the little gizmo that let's one see user or article history by running one's mouse over. Technology! what an amazing thing. :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing! It's one of those neat tools, that once you've gotten used to it, you never want to be without it. :) It used to be that you needed to mess with javascript pages to get it to work, but things are a lot easier now:

Click on "my preferences" at the top of the page
Click on the "Gadgets" tab
Select the checkbox that says "Navigation popups"
Click "save"
Go to some other article on Misplaced Pages, and hover your mouse over links and footnotes, and a whole new world should be open to you (note that if the server is running slow, you may need to hold the mouse over a link for a second or two to get it to "catch".)
To see someone's contribs, hover over the link to their name, then move the mouse to the "user" submenu on the popup, then pull down to "contributions" (this gives you the same list you might see if you went to someone's userpage and clicked on "User contributions" in the lefthand toolbox). Then hovering over "last" on each line will show you a quick popup of what was done on each edit (if you're looking at the "full" page, this is the same thing as hovering over "diff")
It's also fun to go into "Recent changes" and hover over the various links there as well.
If you have a Firefox browser, I also strongly recommend the WikEd gadget. It makes editing complex pages sooooooooooo much easier, since it color-codes everything and gives you a lot of good editing tools such as search and replace, the ability to "turn off" embedded references to make text more readable, and lots of other very handy devices.

Enjoy, and let me know if you have any questions, --El on ka 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Elonka. A quick question regarding something said by MZMMcBride above. He says: "And really, I'd like to hear what he has to say on the issue (if anything) before others come jumping to his defense. More than likely, he knew that his actions would result in a response like this. " Was this just an rhetorical comment, or would he really like me to discuss the issue with him personally? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt to ask him, though to strengthen your voice, I'd recommend getting a couple other articles into your contribs list first. :) --El on ka 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

POV pusher at Barack Obama

Since you have been tasked with monitoring culture wars, I hope that I may respectfully request your review of this matter.

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page, proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus. It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'm afraid that I won't have the time to look at this particular case, sorry. You may wish to review the steps at dealing with disruptive editors, and post a thread at WP:ANI. --El on ka 14:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gang editing

Please see this Talk page thread: . It involves Ramdrake, Alun/Wobble, and Slrubenstein; the editors from the R&I article. Is this type of collusion/meatpuppet-like activity acceptable; that is going from article to article, working as a team? --Jagz (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent question, that doesn't have an easy answer, as there are both good and bad reasons for the behavior that you describe. On the one hand, it is very common for editors who work in a certain topic area, to often show up on the same articles (for example, if doing substantive work on articles about the Crusades, you rapidly get to know the major players, and when a new name shows up, it's obvious, so we often do our best to welcome them immediately). On the other hand, some editors do develop political networks, where if one of them runs into a conflict somewhere, they contact their wiki-friends and say, "Come help me win this argument". That kind of behavior is strongly discouraged (see WP:CANVASS). On the other, sometimes one editor will routinely monitor the edits of another, to see, "What are they doing now, since I like to work with them, and I'll go help them wherever they happen to be working at the moment." Editors who work on featured articles will often do this spontaneously, and it's not (usually) a problem unless a conflict develops. It's also the case that sometimes a conflict will have been reported on a dispute resolution noticeboard somewhere, in which case it is strongly encouraged that new voices enter a discussion. So, bottom line, "it depends". I will say that it doesn't really look like "meatpuppets", since all of the editors that you listed are established editors, and meatpuppets are usually SPAs. It's reasonable for you to offer a (civil and good faith) query such as, "Didn't I see all of you (name) over on (article X) recently? How is that you're all now suddenly on this article too? Is there a noticeboard that I should be watching? If so, I'd like to join."

Also, be aware that if it wasn't them in particular, it might be other editors doing the same thing, so it is often best to focus less on who the editors are, than what they are saying or doing. If their behavior is within policy, then there is usually not a problem. But if the behavior is leading to an article that is becoming biased or unverifiable, then that's an issue, and you should address that issue in a frame of, "protecting the article" rather than "excluding certain editors". It's a subtle point, but very important in wiki-culture. Hope that helps, El on ka 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I'd like to point out that there was good progress on the R&I article after it was unlocked on February 1 until a couple of weeks after this message , that's when Ramdrake became active again. After Ramdrake became active again, Alun/Wobble and Slrubenstein soon afterwards became active again too and progress soon became next to impossible. --Jagz (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you mean by "progress"? In the context of changes to the article, what do you think is being thwarted? --El on ka 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, progress can be subjective. I define progress to mean an improvement in the readability of the article by a layperson for one thing. May I suggest that although there had been some normal editing conflicts prior to this, that the turning point in an ability to make progress on the R&I article started at about the time of this edit on March 18. Ramdrake added the edit summary: "Revert - it is the responsibility of the editor pushing for inclusion to gather consensus on the talk page once edits have been challenged." However, since these edits had already been in the article for several weeks, discussion should have occurred on the Talk page prior to removing the material instead of the other way around as Ramdrake maintained. Afterwards, I reverted Ramdrake but Ramdrake reverted me to remove the material again. Although not just limited to those three editors I mentioned above, I believe that the editing became a battle of POVs after that instead of being an effort to create a NPOV article. I was perceived as having a particular POV and was not able to make edits in favor of that POV afterwards regardless of the merit of the edit, regardless of whether the edit improved the NPOV of the article overall, and regardless of edits I made in favor of another POV. It has become a battle of POVs rather than an attempt to produce a NPOV article, granted that different editors may have different views of what constitutes a NPOV article. Maybe that is the solution to the problem, to get everyone to agree to what constitutes a NPOV article, that is if it is possible. --Jagz (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the three editors I mentioned above, they point each other to certain articles by leaving subtly worded messages on each others Talk pages. --Jagz (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the same 3 editors on another article . I don't think I would be mistaken to say that this type of activity can lead to a contrived consensus. --Jagz (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to my watchlist. But the issue remains, that it's not against policy for editors to be working together in the same topic area. For an administrator to get involved, there would need to be some indication that a policy was being violated. If you do see such a thing, you should bring it up at the article talkpage. If it seems that you are continually being "overruled" by the same editors, then try to get more opinions into the mix, perhaps via a Request for Comment. You can also suggest mediation. See dispute resolution for more options. --El on ka 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me on how Misplaced Pages's reliance on consensus building is consistent with "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy"? These 2 principles seem to conflict with each other but maybe I am overlooking something. Also, is it okay to inquire about an editors qualifications/expertise on a particular article? --Jagz (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" is a slippery word. It's defined one way at Consensus, and another way at Misplaced Pages:Consensus. You may also find the WP:DDV page helpful. As for qualifications, no, that's probably not a good angle to take. On Misplaced Pages, anyone can contribute regardless of their qualifications, since the goal here is to rely on published sources, not on an editor's personal knowledge. So if a child could come in and be a good researcher and dig up good solid sources, their voice would have just as much weight (or even more!) than a PhD who was arguing from personal knowledge and saying, "That's not so!". The PhD would be required to produce sources to back up their opinion. And if they couldn't, well, then that would say bad things about their methodology. And I'm not exaggerating. I've actually had those kinds of arguments with people who claimed advanced degrees, but when asked for sources to back up the claims that they were making, they couldn't produce any. Misplaced Pages runs on reliable sources, not on expert opinions. Experts are definitely welcomed and encouraged to participate, and I greatly value their input... But when it comes to a dispute, they'd better be able to back things up with sources. --El on ka 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your intervention requested

Please see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Abusive editing by 6SJ7. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is a direct challenge to your efforts to mediate this dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, I'm taking a look at it now. One request though: Please, to make my job easier, keep your own reactions very very civil, to reduce the noise level? For example, did he really use profanity against you? If not, I recommend refactoring that part of your post. Stick just to what he did say (preferably with diffs). Thanks, El on ka 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't use profanity, but the clear intention is essentially to spite me. He's been a problem editor for a while - after I gave evidence against him in an arbitration case about 18 months ago he seems to have me marked down as an "enemy". -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are being harassed, I can help deal with that. But if you're accusing him of saying things that he didn't say, it just makes my job harder. Please, just stick to the facts, thanks. --El on ka 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another unprovoked personal attack here: -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Elonka, that's not good enough. I'm taking it to AN/I. I don't want to make your life any more difficult, but I honestly think attacks like that require some more robustness. This is nothing to do with any recent events - it's 6SJ7's sour grapes at events a year or more ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, please think carefully about why you want to take it to ANI? Normally someone opens a thread there because they want to get an uninvolved admin's attention (which you already do), or because they want to complain about an administrator (which I hope you're not doing). Since you've already got admin attention though, plus you've been posting about it at multiple administrator pages, an ANI thread could come back to bite you as "forum-shopping". My honest advice is not to start one, as I can't see as it would do much good. --El on ka 19:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to take it to AN/I because I'm not satisfied with your response to it, simple as that. Dealing with personal attacks by rapping users over the knuckles with a wet noodle is not an effective way of dealing with them. Frankly, right now I'm thinking I should have taken it to AN/I in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what action are you looking for? If you were in my place, what action would you take? --El on ka 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK.

Just got your message. I'll comply with it. Thanks for you work on policing this article.--Julia1987 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

alison's talk page

You write: I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this concept of "Irish admin unblocking Irish editor, and saying that people need to check with said Irish admin before the Irish editor can be blocked again." Have you voiced similar concerns about US editors unblocking US editors, or British unblocking British? Are these invalid analogies somehow? 86.44.27.243 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC) <-- an Irish IP editor just passing through

Ah, you're referring to my comment to Alison. There's more context there that you need to be aware of. Let me assure you that it doesn't mean that I dislike Irish editors. :) More what I was referring to, was the "uninvolved" nature of Alison's actions. It is standard practice on Misplaced Pages, that administrators should not use their tools on situations where they are involved (see WP:UNINVOLVED). In Alison's case, since she was heavily involved in editing Irish-related subjects on Misplaced Pages, and she was talking about unblocking an editor who was editing Irish-related subjects, I was questioning her involved status. Not her genetics. I think that Alison is an excellent administrator and I look forward to continue working with her. To extend the analogy, such as "American admins dealing with American editors", it would work like this: Where an editor or admin is from, isn't the issue. But if a certain group of editors, including an admin, were all working on articles about the American Revolution, then it would be expected that any admin working in that topic area, be very cautious about using their tools on editors working in that same topic area. If an administrator was heavily involved in editing (for example) Benjamin Franklin, then they might not be the best admin to use tools at Thomas Jefferson. It's not strictly forbidden, but it could potentially get into grey area about involved status. Does that make more sense? --El on ka 21:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a great deal more, unless you mean "Irish-related subjects" to stand as shorthand for a much much more narrow range of interests, analogous to the American revolution, as you say. Otherwise—since we will nearly all edit articles pertaining to the countries from which we are from—it does seem you view some editors as "involved" based on nationality, and others not.

WP:Uninvolved is excellent, and highly sensible, and I can appreciate that even a perception of involvement is less than ideal. However, yours does seem a perception, or you do seem to be taking into account a possible perception, that I would safely discount.

I can also very much appreciate your friendly (and extremely prompt!) reply to a passing editor, and I thank you for it. Possibly there are more issues here than I can easily grasp, in which case, apologies, and you needn't bother patiently explaining further. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Misplaced Pages be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Misplaced Pages, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Misplaced Pages according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Misplaced Pages, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. My email address is elonka@aol.com --El on ka 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick question on Nantes

Hi Elonka, what do you think of this statement in the Nantes article In 2004, Time described Nantes as "the most livable city in all of Europe ? I don't think it's NPOV and a one off claim hardly makes it verifiably true? Michellecrisp (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I could really go either way on it. TIME is a pretty reliable source, and there are some other sources which say similar things in the article. Then again, if the article is only including good quotes about the city, then it might be violating WP:UNDUE, and it could be worth looking for other sources which give more balanced opinions. I'd also check the TIME article to review context, and see how it was defining "livable". If there's no objection, you might want to move the statement out of the lead. I'd also recommend bringing it up on the talkpage, and get other opinions. --El on ka 12:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Michellecrisp (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I've left a suggestion on MZMcBride's talk page. To be frank, I'm not sure Tundrabuggy deserved a serious long-term sanction with his activity on the page. However, it is not my place to judge this event.
With respect, Jaakobou 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If I am understanding MZMcBride's comments, he has authorized other uninvolved admins to reduce the restrictions if they feel it appropriate. I have encouraged Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) to work on other articles in the meantime, to reduce his SPA-like contrib list, and he has been responding well to guidance (check the history on his userpage). My plan is, that if he continues positively in this vein, to lift restrictions so that he is allowed to participate at the al-Durrah talkpage, and then if his good editing on other articles continues, to also allow him to resume editing at al-Durrah. Or MZM (or some other admin) may do it sooner. It couldn't hurt to bring up Tundrabuggy's new contrib history to MZM and ask him to re-review the situation. --El on ka 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the heated exchanges and attempts to have people sanctioned, I got into this as far as I'm willing to... possibly too much even. Jaakobou 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think things are resolving pretty well at the moment. The Muhammad al-Durrah article is unprotected and seems to be fairly stable at the moment, the talkpage discussions are proceeding in a much more civil fashion, and various editors who were laser-focused on that one page, are starting to work on other things. Tundrabuggy is continuing to improve his (her?) editing skills, and will probably be off sanctions soon. As for other attempts to have people sanctioned, I can make a guess as to what you're referring to, but am not sure. If you'd like to enlighten me, go ahead. :) I am also accessible via IMs and email. --El on ka 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Santos25Q

Elonka, I could use some fresh administrative eyes on this user. I've been going through his edits and the various edits to Carly Corinthos, and I'm almost positive he's a sock of User:Randy Jaiyan who User:Yamla banned. Randy and his many, many socks originated from an IP in Toronto that has been extremely active on the same pages as Santos. Randy has a history of moving pages, uploading copy-vio images, edit warring over characters names (especially Carly's), and creating multiple articles on Claudia Zacchara. KellyAna apparently was his wiki-nemesis, but since she's been banned, I don't think anyone really knew about Randy. Anyway, the behavioral pattern is exactly the same, especialy in regards to not understanding naming conventions at all. I'm not just talking about common names, but a total inability to understand when married names apply to characters and actresses and when middle names should be used. Anyway, could you take a look at Santos for me? He's been blocked for a week by User:Gwernol already, but appears to be evading that block with a number of IPs originating from Toronto. Thanks. Ani Mate 20:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I also recommend filing a report at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. --El on ka 20:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it, but Elonka this is really, really obvious now that I know there's a bigger picture to be looking at. I've been considering filing a RfCU, but am doing two things at once and I don't think I can focus on the computer hard enough right now to fill the form out correctly and hunt down all of the diffs. If there are still some doubts, I can do it later this afternoon. Ani Mate 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about the diff-collecting. However, SSP reports don't have to be too complicated... They could be as simple as what you just presented to me here on my talkpage, and then if it's not enough to convince folks, you can continue to expand information as you have time. Up to you though! :) --El on ka 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've realized that having my laptop open right now is a monumentally bad idea right now if I'm going to accomplish my goals for the day. I'm doing a very half-assed job with my work right now and I really need to be focused on getting some of my cels in order. I'll get on it later tonight. Still, I'd like you to check it out, because I know I'm not jumping at shadows here. Ani Mate 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's too pretty outside to be stuck working indoors, so I took my lap top to the park and went ahead and filed a report here. Difs and everything included. Ani Mate 22:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef-block of User: Jagz

Elonka, if you will review the full contribution history of this user, along with the history of his user talk page, you will find that he did get multiple warnings, for multiple repeated offenses (WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:PARENT all come to mind) and hasn't altered his behavior. Please feel free to ask for a block review at WP:ANI, but you may find that the community is unwilling to give him another chance, if only because he has thoroughly exhausted whatever reserves of patience it had.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I may go to ANI, but I would like to give MastCell a chance to reconsider first, as I think that an ANI thread could get messy. I think that a better way of dealing with Jagz would have been with maybe a one week block, rather than jumping from a 24-hour block in May, to an indef block in June. I just don't think that his recent behavior was that bad, that such an extreme measure was necessary. --El on ka 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eleanor King, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nice article. --Gatoclass (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! :) --El on ka 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverts on Al-Durrah article

I wanted to draw your attention to this. Your credibaility and the appearance of a fair and honest mediation is on the line here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no it's not. It's your understanding of Elonka's clearly stated rules that's faulty. I've answered this on the talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Art conservation

Thanks, Elanka for being willing to help out and learn about Art conservation. I'm awfully impressed with your willingness to take on new topics.

RichardMcCoy 03:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A dura - how do you suggest we proceed?

There are two issues here:

One is content the other is procedure:

Did I follow proper procedure? If not what could be better? Did Tarc followed the rules you laid out ? if not what should be the sanction ? You should have a zero tolerance especially that one editor already banned from the article (actually for no good cause at all). It takes only a quick look at the I/P arbCom sanction section to see that pro-Israeli editors get a sanction that 100 times more severe than pro-Palestinian editors. Is this the normal way things are done around here ? I hope not.

As for content: The image was loaded by an editor that is now banned. It is unclear that the image pass copy-right usage, it is sourced to some pro-Palestinian web site so it fail both WP:RS and copyright issues. But we all know that the image is indeed what Farnce-2 transmitted. However, there are questions about the authenticity of the France -2 report and thus we must find words in the image caption to balance the image itself. Since an image is worth a 1000 words we should actually use strong lanaguge to balance the image – how do you suggest we proceed? --Julia1987 (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick question

Elonka forgive me, I'm slightly confused. I understand and respect your absolute right not only to disagree with a block but to disagree forcefully. But, I do not understand some of the comments you've made in reference to myself. (Apologies for the length of this post).

I was away from[REDACTED] for 2 days - as stated on my page I wanted time to think - so this is my first interaction on the issue of Jagz's block. I respect the right of anyone to object to me if I run for RfA. How and ever I don't know why I am to 'blame' for Jagz's block.

For the record although I think Jagz's comments are personal attacks I am restoring them to my page - I've left worse from others in my archives. And, if Jagz remains blocked I will personally direct people's attention his statement if I run for RfA.

I'm unsure if you have a concern about my good faith - I may have picked some of your comments up wrong. The last part of your comment to Jehochman seems to paint a picture of me as acting in bad faith. Why would Jehochman's action constitute him "running interference" for me? I also want to ask you this: are you worried that I was tag teaming Jagz? You have used the term "opponents" in your comment at ANI - that bothers me in regard to how my position in that issue is being perceived. I have never edited Race and intelligence or Dysgenics. My last interaction with Ramdrake was to disagree repeatedly with him about his position on User:Deeceevoice at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop and Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop. I have worked with Slrubenstein at Feminism but I would not let this fact cloud my action regarding Jagz. Jagz brought himself to my attention with a post at WP:FTN and frankly I see no difference in my intervention as an outsider about tendentious editing on Talk:Race and intelligence from my involvement as an outsider in the Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design or at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann. Our processes of dispute resolution are based not only on involved editors applying policy but of outsiders agreeing or disagreeing in order to find consensus about such decisions - this is how I see my position in regard to Jagz.

From a mix of concern and confusion I would respectfully request that you elaborate about any concerns you have about my behaviour in this issue - I would be very interested to hear them and would certainly take them on baord. And BTW thank you for the note you left on my page--Cailil 12:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and sorry for any confusion. I don't believe that I have implied anywhere that you were to blame for Jagz's block, nor that you were disruptive. I do think that a few editors have been reacting to Jagz more forcefully than they should. Beyond that, I'm still investigating the backgrounds of all involved. I am curious though, what is your own opinion on the Jagz situation? If you were looking at his behavior, as an admin, what do you think would be the appropriate methods to deal with him? Was an indefinite block appropriate? --El on ka 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted anything and thanks for your reply. From my own investigations I haven't seen Jagz make a positive contribution to the project for a few months (I know he created an article recently but this seems to have been a POV fork that ignored consensus). That doesn't mean he can't be a positive contributor.

I'm also concerned about the way he has "retired" from[REDACTED] but returned a couple of times for the sole purpose of making uncivil posts at or about other editors. Even since his agreement at ANI he has not removed himself from the topic. As you said yourself he has highlighted some issues and you are looking into them - his vigilance is no longer necessary. Why the continued comments about Ramdrake? Why the edits to Mathschi's pages - when it is clear that such an action is inappropriate? I'm also cogniscent of the spurious and very serious remark that I explicitly asked him to refactor at ANI (about me having a COI) and his refusal to do so. This shows an inability (or refusal) to distinguish between substantive policy concerns of outsiders and the issues of involved editors with whom he is engaged in a content dispute.

I do however believe in second chances, but only if Jagz agrees to abide in the spirit and to the letter of WP:5. He needs to understand that he has exhausted patience with his behaviour and thus needs to change it. If I were a sysop, I would consider unblocking Jagz in the following circumstances: he agrees not comment on/about editors he was involved with on Race related topics for the duration of his removal from the topic and that he generally stays away from them (except in an ArbCom case o similar); he agrees to enter mentorship (WP:ADOPT); and understands that these agreements are binding.

I hope Jagz would take such an opportunity to learn more about the project and help develop it. The reason, as far as I can see, that a number of other sysops agree with MastCell's block is that Jagz has not attempted to change his behavoiur even after the ANI thread, even after a full set of template warnings, even after being blocked twice. Personally I might have blocked him for 3 weeks and asked him to consider WP:ADOPT etc but I do think the indef serves a valid purpose too--Cailil 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. And please, don't take my comments as attacks on you, but more as constructive criticism for how you can improve. Especially since you are considering adminship, some "tough love" criticism can actually help strengthen your practices quite a bit, so I hope you can take my comments in the spirit with which they are offered. Okay, to start: Your statement "I haven't seen Jagz make a positive contribution to the project for a few months" is pretty strong, and is not matching my own analysis of his activity: Jagz (talk · contribs). I also have concerns about your subpage, where you seem to be labeling things as "trolling" and "vandalism" which are not backed up by diffs. For example, when accusing someone of making an attack, you really need to have a diff of a blatant attack. A diff of someone else calling it an attack isn't enough. And a statement like, "I don't trust you to be a neutral mediator", isn't really a blatant attack. It may be unfair, it may be personally targeted, but I wouldn't call it an attack. Ditto with a statement like, "Please don't make provocative statements." I wouldn't call that uncivil, nor trolling, especially when it's being said in response to someone else's less-than-civil comments.

If you would like to be an admin, it is very important that you be able to accurately recognize what is and isn't vandalism (see WP:VANDAL#NOT) and trolling. You also need to be able to present an analysis of someone's behavior in a neutral way, without going into hyperbole. Making accusations of vandalism and trolling, without strong diffs to back up the accusations, can sometimes be as disruptive as actual disruption, especially when the accusation is coming from an authority figure. When in doubt, it is better to understate the situation than to overstate it. I recommend that you re-examine your subpage, stick to truly egregious diffs, and focus less on your interpretation, and more on what the target (Jagz) actually said. To keep it a well-rounded view of the situation, it would also be helpful if you could take a clear-eyed look at the context of Jagz's behavior, and point out similar issues with other related editors. Because Jagz really isn't the sole problem in this situation. --El on ka 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Elonka and thank you for taking the time to go through this. Let me say this I do think the Jagz report was rushed so I would like to ask, if you have time, that you consider User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles, User:Cailil/pepper and User:Cailil/cailil_sandbox_4 before concluding on my judgement about vandalism etc. Each of these reports took a lot longer to compile and becuase the issue has (in Anacapa's case) not gone away are much more detailed. I'm also happy to delete the Jagz sub-page. In the spirit of AGF, he deserves a fresh start if he wants one. I take your point about interpretation and will act to address that in future and where necessary in older reports.

On the matter of the whole Race topic dispute I think there are other disruptive elements and I really hope that the mediation works or at least goes ahead. I will step back and examine things, especially if further disruption occurs. BTW the level of off-site 'interest' in Race and intelligence was playing a significant part in problems there and should not be under-estimated - I'm almost 100% sure that Jagz is not involved in that however--Cailil 17:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll take a look. There's a lot there, so it may take some time. As my initial impression, there definitely are some places where you are correctly identifying "attacks" and providing diffs of actual attacks (some of them are real doozies!). However, I still see other places where you are making claims of "vandalism" and "trolling", that the diffs aren't backing it up. They might be correct if you called it "disruptive editing" or "incivility" though. What I'm trying to get across, is that "vandalism" is a frequently misused word, and that if you use it, you had better have a diff that is blatant vandalism, otherwise you shouldn't use that word. Ditto with the word "troll", it requires diffs of blatant attempts to disrupt, for the sole purpose of trying to stir things up and get people to react. Just because someone is pushing a POV, makes them neither a vandal nor a troll.

Regarding the Jagz page, you are of course welcome to delete it, but if you really want to address my concerns, I would prefer if you rewrote it. That would help to demonstrate that you were understanding the issues that I have been bringing up. It would also be helpful to me, because in all the diffs that people have been providing, I am still not seeing proof that Jagz was as disruptive as people are claiming. Instead I see multiple good faith efforts on his part to write, and the same editors jumping into every attempt, often with incivility and name-calling. Frankly, if I had that many people calling me a troll everywhere I went, I'd get a bit testy too. But if you seriously feel that Jagz is the core reason for the disruption here, I would like to see you make that case on your subpage. --El on ka 17:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For the most part I agree that vandalism usually means adding blatant nonsense etc - but there is also the term "complex vandalism" ala Durova's use of it - I do however see that that term may be a bit confusing for some. But on the other hand perhaps we should write an essay explaining that complex vandalism equals partial and selective usage of sources - twisting them out of context and misrepresenting their points. BTW I will rewrite the Jagz report--Cailil 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other things to call it: POV-pushing, disruption, misinterpretation of sources, tendentious editing, violation of WP:UNDUE, etc. But I disagree with calling it vandalism, because that term means, "Deliberate attempts to damage the project". For example, if someone is blanking a page and replacing it with a picture of their genitals, that's blatant vandalism. If someone is sneakily going through hundreds of articles and changing everyone's birthdate by one year, then I'd call that "complex" vandalism. But good faith disagreements on content are not vandalism. Such an editor may be stubborn, tendentious, and infuriating. But they're still not a vandal. --El on ka 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What about someone who deliberately & blatantly misrepresents a source, that severely damages the project - in fact it places it in danger - hence ArbCom's recent remedies and requests regarding the CAMERA case--Cailil 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would still be reluctant to call it vandalism except in truly obvious cases, like if someone was sourcing the Encyclopedia Britannica to say, "Thomas Jefferson was born in 1225". I'd have no trouble calling that vandalism. But if it's a source where someone could plausibly interpret it in a different way than "most" people, I wouldn't call it vandalism. I've written more on this (and found an appropriate photo, heh) at Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Dealing with disputes#Dealing with entrenched views. --El on ka 18:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the picture :). What do you think of the term complex disruption since it really is POINTY when somebody misrepresents a source. I am in most cases talking about wild mis-characterizations and at least in regard to Anacapa and MoritzB my use of complex vandalism would be correct by your standards but I would not include Jagz as having done this, to my knowledge--Cailil 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For me to agree that that was vandalism, things would have to be laid out in a very clear way. For (a fictitious) example: "Merlin is deliberately misrepresenting sources, and I believe that this rises to the level of vandalism. For example, here is a diff of him adding (statement) to (article) and sourcing it to to (source). However, if you actually look at the source, it says the opposite from what Merlin added, it says (quote from source). This was pointed out to Merlin.(diff) However, he disagreed (diff). We requested comments from other editors, and they agreed that Merlin was misinterpreting the source.(diffs) Merlin, however, continued to disagree with everyone, and kept adding more misinterpreted information to the article.(diffs)" But even there, I'd still rather call it "tendentous editing" or "misinterpretation of sources", than vandalism. Or to put it another way, why insist on calling it vandalism in the first place? It just muddles the issue, when other terms could be much more clear. --El on ka 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I accept your position Elonka but I think humanities people respond quite differently to misrepresentation of sources - in our training & rubric it's right-up there with plagiarism. If it happened for example that somebody deliberately presented a mis-characterization of a thesis in their research it would get legal, fast. Even innocent mis-representation has led people to fail doctoral and masters degrees. That said I take your point about the confusion and will iron it out. Thanks for the advice and constructive criticism--Cailil 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that misrepresentation of sources is a serious offense that should be dealt with aggressively. I just disagree that it should be called vandalism. We block people for vandalism, constantly and rapidly. But interpretation of sources is something that takes more judgment. I have seen both sides of the coin, where an editor used a source and it was misinterpreted, or when an editor used a source, was accused of misinterpretation, but it turns out they were correctly using the source. Neither side though should be called vandalism. --El on ka 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Random request for help

Hi Elonka, I happened to notice a comment you made about an arbitration so looked at your talk page... and realised you are (a) editing under your own name and (b) a computer scientist in practise (whether or not by academic qualification) and (c) interesting in magic. Given I'm also matching all three of those, I thought I'd randomly ask you for some help given I've just about given up with Misplaced Pages.

In short, a user tried suggesting a site I run was unsuitable as a reference after he took issue with me for material I published in the press. He also tried various other tactics of causing me trouble such as falsely accusing me of being someone else. Anyway, when his suggestion was rejected by a number of admins in informal discussion on the admins notice board, he went and personally removed every link to the site. Only about 2 of these links were put there by me, and they were relevant. The other links he removed were placed by a variety of people including some admins. His excluses for removing them vary, including accusations for "spaming" when editor history shows that the links were included in the very first draft of various articles by people who are experts and key contributors on those topics. He also removed links to archives I hold of historic documents, prefering to leave just the paper references with no online source. This has damaged Misplaced Pages, and the mixed advice and lack of actual assistance I've been getting from the couple of admins and arbcom members I contacted leave me with little faith in the process either. It's not that they've said I don't have a case, it's that they don't seem keen to help me resolve the issue.

Anyway if you're willing to help, please let me know. I really don't know what to do with this any more. If you drop me a note on my userpage I can sent you more information if you want and are willing to help. In either case, thank you for your time. Oboler (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My plate is pretty full at the moment, but if you can point me at an article or two that you have concerns about, I'll take a look. --El on ka 23:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This is really strange - I had previously formally notified ChrisO about the above case, last week. The user even acknowledged the message positively on my talk page. This was when I attempted to intervene as a neutral party, something I quickly threw my hands up over and exited - I salute you for your patience. But for seem reason Moreschi seems to have edited through protection to remove ChrisO from the list - this is damned odd. Kelly 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I understand it, there was a discussion about who was allowed to place editors on the list, and the decision was, "Only uninvolved admins." I think it's somewhere in the SlimVirgin ANI thread. --El on ka 01:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. I guess only admins can deal with ARBPIA issues, as opposed to neutral editors. Not as if admins have other stuff to do. :) I'm sure the notification has a different meaning coming from an uninvolved admin as opposed to a peon uninvolved editor. :) Kelly 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I went back and looked at that thread and it said nothing of the sort. The consensus seemed to be that a trip back to ArbCom would be necessary in order to limit notifications to admins. Kelly 02:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a matter of interpretation. I've been involved with Arbitration Enforcement on multiple cases (as has Rlevse), and the general procedure that we follow on other similar cases that you might see at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions, is that it takes an "uninvolved admin". So that's what's being followed at the P-I case, even though it's not explicitly stated as such on that particular case page. If you'd like to file a request for clarification at WP:RFAR, you are welcome to do so. Some might perceive it as a teensy bit wikilawyering and WP:POINTy, but then again, it could be good to get a formal signoff from ArbCom on it. So up to you if you'd like to file the paperwork or not, but I'm 95% sure what the answer will be. --El on ka 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no thanks. I see what camp you're in. Leaving now.... Kelly 02:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, that wasn't a threat. If I'm thinking about taking action against someone, I give them a clear "warning shot across the bow" at their talkpage first. You're safe. :) There's nothing wrong with asking legitimate good-faith questions. --El on ka 02:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for repeatedly assuming good faith. It is hard work to stand up for someone who is wrong but defenseless, and I am very glad to see you do this on a number of occasions. As someone who makes several thousand mistakes a day, it warms my heart to see someone willing to work with those last few people who are not yet perfect. JackSchmidt (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Elonka, please accept my apology for questioning your integrity. I have been frustrated by the way things were going at the al Dura article and felt that one POV was getting a free ride. Your recent actions have restored my faith that you are a fair mediator, sorry for jumping the gun. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and don't worry, I didn't take it personally. There are lots of complicated emotional factors at play here, and I'm well aware of that. Just do your best to stay as civil as possible in the future, and I'll be happy. :) --El on ka 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad editing

I'm sorry, Elonka, but if you're facilitating utterly tendentious SPAs who are plainly editing in bad faith (I refer specifically to Julia1987) I don't feel that your mediation is getting anywhere useful with these people running amok. I will be returning to arbitration enforcement to request a topic ban on the SPAs. I'm disappointed that you haven't taken a firmer line with the SPAs, given their consistent disregard for NPOV and their endless soapboxing. When the Arbitration Committee has clearly stated that "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited", it's very unsatisfactory that users who are blatantly violating this injunction are being tolerated.

As for my edit, if you look carefully at it, I removed (1) an unsourced addition by Julia1987 ("The report authenticity was called into question and the whole affair is the subject to intensive judicial review in France.") and (2) an improperly sourced addition by Julia1987 ("However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. ") - I don't think we can reasonably use a copyright-violating non-English web video as a source. Please also bear in mind that WP:COPY requires copyright-violating links to be removed. The wording of both additions was awful and plainly POV-pushing, as usual with Julia1987. I accidentally removed a change and citation added by Canadian Monkey, so I restored that.

Your own editing rules state: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." The two contributions I removed were a very biased unsourced statement and a very biased statement sourced to a copyright violation. This is clearly well within the parameters of what you stated could be "deleted on the spot", so page-banning me for following your parameters seems distinctly unfair. Julia1987's additions are consistently atrocious - I think you would be better off topic-banning her, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-right issue is a strew man nothing more. There is the original source on Ch10 web site. All that I brought (for your convenience) is a copy of the video that has the English translation. If you prefer to place a link to the original (Hebrew without translation) web site this is fine as well. In any case the issue was raised in the trial itself. ChrisO first accused "right wing bloggers" in propagating lies about al-dura the father. Now that these accusations are find to be true (based on a medical record and the testimony of the doctor who did the surgery Chris is trying to remove the evidence. Why does he do it on your talk page and not in the article talk page? Is this a violation of the ban placed on him? The ban was supposed to help ChrisO cool a bit from this article – maybe a longer ban is needed as he seem to pre occupied with this article.--Julia1987 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS there are other copy right issues: with images and diagrams in this article.--Julia1987 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, if you disagree with the restrictions, you are welcome to start a thread at WP:AE, though I think it would be better that you just took a week off from the article, and then we'd see how things go after that. If you do decide to start a thread, please provide me a link though so I can participate. Thanks, El on ka 14:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind dealing with my points about Julia1987's additions being (a) unsourced, (b) highly POV, and (c) linking to a copyvio which policy says we must remove? Do you consider these to be within the scope of what you said could be "deleted on the spot", or not? If not, why not? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia1987 has been placed under restrictions, and is no longer allowed to edit the lead of the article. If there are further problems, the restrictions may be expanded. --El on ka 17:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I welcome that move but with respect, Elonka, that's not an answer to my question. Could you please state whether or not you consider the removal of material that was (a) unsourced, (b) highly POV, and (c) a copyright violation is within the parameters of what you allowed in your restrictions, and if not why not? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not going to get into a word by word debate of which of her edits were appropriate, and which weren't. The main point is that you did a full out revert, wiping out 100% of her changes, going back to your own last version, without any attempt to change the edit to something better. That was in direct opposition to the editing conditions that had been placed on the article, and which I had already warned you about. --El on ka 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change them to "something better" because how do you do that for something for which the only source is a pirate web video? That should never have been added in the first place - I'm not going to add anything I can't verify. If I had simply deleted the copyvio source link and tidied up the words, I would have been left with an unsourced and possibly libelous statement. Remember WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." In any case, you've plainly acknowledged that Julia1987's edits were unacceptable by restricting her editing of the lead.

I don't really mind taking a break from the article for a few days but I think a month is very excessive given the circumstances. I would ask you to reconsider the length - I'd prefer to resolve this amicably. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summaries are not helping your case. Neither is all this scrambling about trying to justify your actions. You obviously did a 100% revert, wiping out several intervening edits. This was directly against the editing conditions, and also was despite the fact that I had specifically warned you to stop reverting. I don't buy this "BLP" angle, because your edit summary was very clear as to the reason for your revert: "Blatant POV pushing". Considering your aggressive and wikilawyering demeanor here, I am not inclined to be lifting restrictions early. I strongly recommend that you rethink your approach. --El on ka 07:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Elonka. I've explained why I made that edit in good faith, within the parameters that you set, applying fundamental Foundation-level policies. I'd remind you that any restrictions you set don't (and indeed can't) overrule basic policies set by the Foundation. I acknowledge that I didn't explain the edit properly at the time, which was clearly an error of judgment on my part, and it deserved a response from you. My point of disagreement is that I think your response was excessive given the mitigating circumstances. I've explained those circumstances here, again in good faith, in the belief that you would be willing to listen to my side of the story. That isn't wikilawyering.

I don't wish to personalise this, but with all due respect I believe you may not have made the right decision here. I think it would be beneficial to get some outside input and to that end, I will be raising the matter on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. I'll post a courtesy link here when I get it sorted out later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to file an appeal, however I would point out that such a thread will probably take a week or longer to resolve anyway. Also, if you do go this route, be aware that you could make things worse on yourself. If an appeal is filed, your entire range of behavior in the topic area will be brought up for review, including examples of incivility, forum-shopping, and multiple incidents of you issuing warnings to opponents, even though you were clearly not an "uninvolved administrator" in the situation. It will also be pointed out that you asked for an uninvolved administrator to help out at the page, and then when I offered my services, you agreed to my participation, but then when I gave out cautions to multiple editors (including yourself), you seemed to feel that the cautions applied to other people, but not to you. You ignored restrictions, and then when I gave you a specific warning, "one more revert and you go under sanctions", you still went ahead and did another revert. Also, if you start a public debate about this, be aware that other editors will be allowed to offer statements, and anyone who has had concerns about your behavior, will probably also be jumping in with statements about "involved" actions that you have taken. Personally, I think when the entire situation is looked at in context, that you may end up with a complete topic ban (not just a page ban), as well as questions about whether or not you have been abusing your administrator access. So, before you start such a thread, I would recommend that you think hard about possible outcomes here. My honest advice is to just sit out your page ban, and go work on something else for a few days. Then when the page ban is up, you can come back to the talkpage. If you can keep your comments positive, civil, and constructive, especially when dealing with editors who disagree with you, I will consider lifting the article-editing ban early. --El on ka 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realise that an appeal wouldn't reflect well on you either, given that you page-banned me for removing this extremely obvious BLP and copyright violation - in full compliance with policy and your own editing restrictions. I note that you haven't raised the subject of the BLP and copyright violation with Julia1987, even though I pointed it out at the start of this discussion. At a time when Wikimedia is doing its best to crack down on BLP violations, I'm sure you'll appreciate that the sight of one admin page-banning another for actually enforcing BLP will look very strange. The bottom line is that you have mistakenly topic-banned me for performing what you assumed was a revert - admittedly my very uninformative edit summary didn't help - when it should have been obvious that what I removed should never have been added to the article in the first place. I might also add that as the comments on my talk page have shown, a number of editors are unhappy about your own handling of this mediation, so it would be quite likely that anyone who has had concerns about that would add their voices to the discussion. I'm quite prepared to stand by my edit. However, you would have to be prepared to explain why you have apparently ignored such a blatant BLP violation and penalised the person who did spot and act on it.

I really don't want to escalate this, as it would take up a lot of time that could be better used doing other things and as you say the outcome would not be predictable for either of us. I'd much prefer to reach a compromise that would resolve this satisfactorily for both of us. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've stayed away from the discussion on the main page (and actually Misplaced Pages in general) for various reasons over the past few days, one of the main ones being that it was a totally futile debate. You had one editor, with occasional help, trying to uphold basic Misplaced Pages rules, and a bunch of - to be quite frank - loony conspiracy theorists and POV pushers attempting to use a page about a dead child to promote a biased and politically motivated hasbara campaign. I am astonished that one of the few sane people participating in that debate has now been pushed off the page by your action. Chris has invested a lot of time carefully and calmly explaining rules and policies to these people. They have repeatedly ignored that advice, as well as ignored observations that a lot of what they are saying is factually wrong at quite a basic level, and yet he's the one forced off? As explained above, the edits were entirely reasonable. And isn't this a revert, which by your own rules means Julia should be banned too? --Nickhh (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the assessment that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has been "calmly explaining" things, especially with edit summaries such as "Groundhog Day" and "Loony conspiracy theorising", and the way that he is referring to multiple editors such as Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) as a SPA, even when he's clearly not (check ChrisO's talkpage for that discussion). As for Julia's removal of sourced information, I do agree that that was questionable, and if she continues with this kind of behavior, her restrictions will increase as well. I'm not sure I would count that edit as a revert though. Then again, I haven't compared it with other recent edits. If you can show me a "before" and "after" that prove it was a revert, I'll take a look at it. --El on ka 14:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just wrong. He has been calmly explaining some of the issues, but has also on occasion been quite brutal (and in my view accurate) about describing some of the behaviour on that article and its associated talk page. One doesn't exclude the other. Directing the SPA comment at CM was an error, although it appeared to me to be a fairly casual reference which was made in the context of two other editors who are (or in one case were) total SPAs by any definition. Oh and here's the diff showing when the material Julia deleted went in. I assume that everyone here will be treated equally, and also that removing one editor from the page who seemed to care about basic policy won't lead to others running riot over it. --Nickhh (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. I have placed Julia1987 on a one-month ban from editing the lead section of the article. --El on ka 15:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jaakobou:

I agree with ChrisO that the phrasing on the material presented in the video by the doctor is biased and presented as an absolute truth. A more neutral phrasing would have been "Jamal presented scars stating that ... an Israeli doctor from XXX hospital presented X-rays stating these scars were originally...". Anyways, I think a number of people on this argument could use a break. Everyone seems to be lashing the word "conspiracy" at other editors, rather than present their own positions and arguments.

I'm not sure ChrisO's revert merits a full month ban. Perhaps, the sanction on him could be reduced somehow? maybe 0RR for 72hrs and 1RR for 2 weeks (just raising suggestions).

With respect, Jaakobou 10:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He (and everyone else on the page) was already on 0RR (see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing), and ChrisO violated it at least three times. After the second revert, I cautioned him and told him if he reverted again, he was going on restrictions. Then he reverted again, and I put him on restrictions. See his talkpage for diffs. --El on ka 14:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Restriction

I understand the need to take a even hand against both sides however the edit in question was explained very well in the edit summary. The al dura incident took place on Sep 30, 2000 while the source ChrisO used to justify "widespread violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" was from Oct 2nd. So his edit – while not being relevant had created a wrong impression that replaced between the cause and the outcome.

It was the report on al-dura death (broadcast on Sep 30th) that sparked the clashes that took place in Oct 1st and Oct 2nd – those clashes are the one reported by the source mention in the line that I removed.

So to summarize: There was a very good cause to remove this line as it was not relevant to the subject matter and actually creating a false impression by using a source that is dated two days after the event (to describe the so events that led to Al-dura incident) Clearly events on Oct 1st and 2nd can not describe the atmosphere leading into an event that took place on Sep 30th. I would appreciate if you reconsider the restriction as there was no violation of the editing rules involved.--Julia1987 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you are still allowed to edit the talkpage, you may wish to start a section on this there. If other editors agree with you, someone else can make any necessary changes, as long as they comply with the Conditions for editing. And again, I strongly encourage you to get involved with editing other articles, not just one. --El on ka 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started to edit in my area of expertise(Chemistry) : maybe I'll add more.--Julia1987 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That one edit from a week ago is a good sign. :) You'll need more though to balance out your contribs. Ideally try to find a balance where at least half your edits are in non-controversial areas. But in the meantime I'd like to see you have edits on at least five other articles. If you need help finding something to do, try something like WP:CLEANUP, Category:Articles that need to be wikified or Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. Or if you'd like to stay in the Israel/Palestine topic area, we could use some help in expanding source articles. For example: List of newspapers in Israel still has lots of redlinks, and we don't even have a List of newspapers in Palestine yet, though there's Category:Palestinian media which could really use one. Making some stubs for sources would be really helpful. --El on ka 20:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi

I believe this answers your question. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --El on ka 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz

Hi Elonka, thanks for your message on my talk page. All I can say is I began calling Jagz a troll, and urging other editors on the page not to "feed the troll," only after I was convinced that he is a troll. I do not consider this incivility: the open nature of Misplaced Pages means that we will attract a variety of editors spanning a whole range of virtues and vices. Some are trolls, and they disrupt the real job of the project which is to write a quality encyclkopedia, and at least on race related pages, Jagz has done just (and only just) that. As I explained on AN/I, I also only reached this conclusion after jagz refused at least two attemps at or requests for mediation. Be that as it may, if he is not editing race related articles I see no cause for conflict between us. I only commented on his talk page because he made a comment concerning my motives. That comment was false. I assure you that for better or worse my comment is a truthful account of my motives. I appreciate the good intentions of any editor who tries to resolve a dispute but given a couple of failed tries for mediation and pointles RFCs at this point I see no dispute to be resolved; Jagz has been blocked and I am sure you know and understand that blocks are never punative, they are meant to prevent disruption. Be that as it may you have made several claims on the AN/I page and I and I think two other editors have asked to to provide some evidence supporting your claims. I say your message upon turning on my computer and came here to respond immediately so I have not yet seen your answers at AN/I but if you have not yet had time to provide your evidence, I sincerely hope you do. As for me, as I said, as long as Jagz is blocked from race related articles I see no cause for any other kind of interaction between us; I will only comment on the situation again if it is to respond directly to a direct comment he or someone else makes about me. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I would also see it as a sign of good faith if you would reconsider your comment at Jagz's talkpage, and refactor anything which might be regarded as uncivil. It would be a powerful statement that I'm sure that other editors would pick up on, and I think it would help de-escalate things all around. --El on ka 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I struck it out, with a brief explanation. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

NB two comments for you in response to your post, on my talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, II

At your request, I struck out what you thought was a provocative comment I wrote on jagz' user page. I did this in good faith, and as a gesture of good faith. What was jag's response? This: . Let me note that Epf Ramdrake and I were involved in a conflict that the three of us managed to resolve by ourselves, without mediation, to everyone's satisfaction. Please, elonka, tell me why jagz wrote this. is he trying to make me look bad? Is he trying to stir up new conflict between me and Epf? Please tell me what his motive was. And this is after I struck out the comment you asked me to, and agreed that I would not object if the indef block were lifted. Please tell me, is this how you have been mentoring Jagz? Di you encourage him to do this? Is this how you expect us to move beyond our conflicts? What more do you want from me before Jagz stops being uncivil and disruptive? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking out the post. :) As for you and Epf, I really haven't dug into anything. I noticed that Jagz's diff was fairly old, but that was about it. As for what I'd like from you, I'm concerned that you're reading a lot more into that one comment by Jagz than is really warranted. Like "Is he trying to make me look bad?" In whose eyes? Mine? My honest opinion is that your reactions are being more defensive than needed. I'd say shrug it off, and go on and do whatever else on Misplaced Pages you want to do be doing. Do you think that you'd be comfortable in removing Jagz's talkpage from your watchlist? It might make things less stressful for you. --El on ka 23:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jagz' talk page is not on my watchlist, and i am not stressed out. My question was not about me an Epf, it was about me and Jagz. And my question really was all it seemed to be: what do you think his intention was in writing that comment? Yes, he was refering to something that happened a long time ago - so ... why? You said you wanted to mentor Jagz as a condition of his being unblocked. I want to know what you mean by "mentoring" and the way I can know is if you can tell me what his intention was in posting that. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a mindreader, I have no idea what his intention was. I could guess that he's blocked and bored and saw someone he didn't know posting a message on his talkpage, so he dug in to see why that editor was even noticing about him, and then he saw that you and the editor had been in a prior dispute and commented on it. So it may have been as simple as pointing out, "Ah, that's why he posted," or it may have had some other meaning, I don't know. I don't see his comment as particularly disruptive, especially because he's still limited to his own talkpage, and you had just posted a somewhat uncivil comment to him. If anything, I thought he acted with civility and restraint. --El on ka 06:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you do not have to be a mindreader but if you want to mentor Jagz you have to communicate with him, and you definitely need to read what he writes more carefully. You guess that he "saw someone he did not know posting on his talkpgage, so he dug in to see why that editor was noticing him" when you know full well that he knows who I am, and that when I posted my explanation for using the WP:DNFTT link (which as I emphasized I struck out, in part at your request) I was responding to a comment he made on his own talk page. So I have no idea what you mean about the "aha that is why he posted." Slrubenstein | Talk 07:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming that he had confused Epf and Eff. But again, I don't know. --El on ka 07:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as "mentor" you are welcome to ask him. I do not see how he would confuse Epf and Eff, their user pages and thus logs of their edits are very different. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, I replied to your comment that you left on Slrubenstein's talk page. I was unsure where to put it, but ended up deciding to keep the conversation together assuming at this point you're probably monitoring that talk page, since there have been several replies addressed to you on it.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at your talkpage. --El on ka 04:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I know I have sometimes been uncivil on the R&I talk page, you are quite right to point it out. I promise to be more civil in the future, I agree that it leads to a more productive atmosphere on articles, though it is annoying when one makes an edit, that one has researched and cited, and then it gets removed from an article because it gives a different pov, neutrality is about giving all relevant povs, this annoyance can spill over into talk page posts. If you think I am being uncivil in the future please point it out to me and I'll try harder. I've also noticed that sometimes I make what I think are perfectly reasonable comments and someone gets offended, I don't know if this is due to cultural differences between British and American people, maybe we're more used to saying what we think in a more blunt way in Britain. On the other hand I honestly don't see the connection between this and Jagz's block, which was for a pattern of disruptive editing and pov-pushing and not for any specific edit or at all related to civility. Alun (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi. Per your comment at Misplaced Pages talk:List of infoboxes#Out-of-date lists, I thought I'd let you know that I'm planning on merging the 2 remaining lists into the category (or into each other, if anyone values the list format, and speaks up about it) sometime in the next week. See discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Lists of infoboxes. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Santos25Q not blocked?

Elonka, I'm having a hard time understanding why this user hasn't been indefinitely blocked. Looking at the list of both suspected and confirmed socks he had as Randy Jaiyan in addition to those under Santos25Q... this just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I believe in second and even third chances, but this is too much in my opinion. Ani Mate 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And he's back to editing as an IP again. He reverted two redirects with another IP originating from the Toronto area . Ani Mate 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

the status quo

As it is Ramdrake and Co have removed a lot of relevant information from the Dysgenics article and included unsourced and badly sourced paragraphs. From the looks of it non of the regular editors, myself included, feel like dealing with them and haven't made any edits recently, though some polite attempts have been made on the talk page.

Next there is the issue with the perm ban of Rubidium37 by Dreadstar.

Bottom line is that I don't like to personally engage in Misplaced Pages's political arena, or deal with the cases where WP:OWN has evolved into WP:BANANA_REPUBLIC. --Zero g (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add the Dysgenics article to my watchlist, but I'm not going to get involved in making decisions on content, so that's still up to you (and other editors), to make polite and source-based additions, as well as engaging in calm commentary on the talkpage. What I can do though is ensure that the discussion stays civil. For best results, I recommend that you keep your own comments very very polite, and strictly focused on the article. Resist the temptation to engage in finger-pointing at specific editors. If anyone is truly disruptive, it'll show up pretty quickly, if all the other editors are able to keep control of their own tempers. --El on ka 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a try.

What is your opinion about Rubidium37's ban? He was banned for being a disruptive SPA sock puppet. Firstly: he was not disruptive, secondly: two days seems a bit short to determine SPA which is not a banneble offense anyways. Thirdly: no check user was performed. --Zero g (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about Rubidium37, but Dreadstar is a pretty level-headed admin. You might want to talk to him directly (and calmly) and ask him if he'll reconsider. --El on ka 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Check this first Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive418#Indefinite_block_of_User:Rubidium37. And can I ask why Zero g is taking up something Jagz proposed back then and has already been to ANI? Dare we call this forum shopping? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that ANI post, and may I please remind Rlevse to assume good faith. I also strongly dislike the false accusation of forum shopping, especially given how easy it is for an admin to ban someone on a whim without being held accountable.

To answer your question, I'm not impressed with Dreadstar's actions and have no desire to interact with him. To answer Rlevse's one line judgement, how can you determine someone is a SPA account by 8 edits in 2 articles over a time span of 2 days? How can a user be disruptive if in fact it are other users who are disruptive when they revert properly sourced content that is relevant to the article without discussing it on the talk page first? The tone also seemed very inappropriate and particularly biased for an admin when Rlevse's indicated he hoped the "master" got banned as well in the process. Last time I checked it's completely acceptable to have two editing accounts. --Zero g (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Dysgenics

Please feel free to follow the conversation and see how the situation unfolds. Please also feel free to criticize constructively my behaviour if you feel I could do better. I know we got off on the wrong foot (more or less), but I'm hoping that if you follow one such talk page debate, you may have a better understanding of the true circumstances of such disputes as we had with Jagz. Call me a sucker for punishment if you will. Regards, :) --Ramdrake (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The cat

Pardon my ignorance, but when a user retires and someone uses the image of the Alice cat, why is it inherently insulting? I have never read Alice in wonderland and not seen the movie. Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is generally bad form to edit someone else's userpage, though some editors do this to each other in a friendly way. As for this particular image, the Cheshire Cat represents a fanciful creature that smiled broadly, and then gradually faded away to invisibility, with only the smile remaining. It also has somewhat of a reputation of being an "irritating" figure. See Cheshire Cat. --El on ka 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know other's user pages are not as public, unless vandalism is being reverted. I just thought there was something inherent (as in common knowledge in the English world) about the cat. I guess nothing beyond the obvious is there. Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy's topic ban

If you have agreed with MZMcBride to modify Tundrabuggy's article ban, then preferably before Tundrabuggy starts to edit the talk page, MZMcBride should make the necessary modification to this section of the case page. Thanks, PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and updated the case page. --El on ka 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hello, I have just now caught up in the ANI thread and it doesn't matter to me. I can take Jazz on by myself and you tag along, or we can work as a team. You seem to be familiar with Jazz, so I am happy with the thought of teamwork. Just let me know. Dusti 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the team idea, plus since you're not an admin (yet), it's probably best if I stay in the loop. BTW, do you ever use IMs? That's usually a quick way to reach me to discuss something in an off-wiki manner. --El on ka 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I use Facebook to do my IM'ing. Dusti 16:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no

I think this comment is highly inappropriate. Telling him that some crowd of enemies is out to get him? Please. This can't possibly make things better. If you want to help this guy, help him by making him understand that his own behavior has been problematic. If you instead try to convince him that everyone-but-him is the problem, I can't see how his behavior would possibly improve. I had little confidence before that this mentoring would help. But if this is the kind of "mentoring" you're providing, forget not helping- it's actively harmful. Please stop. Friday (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Friday, please! Don't you have an aritlce you can edit than Wikistalk? Please, go edit and let this whole issue drop!! Dusti 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was content to let it lie before the block was undone. This is quite dubious, and it's getting worse as it goes. Friday (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

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

Ch. 10, April 29, 2008