User talk:Elonka - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nepaheshgar (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 29 September 2008 (→thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:10, 29 September 2008 by Nepaheshgar (talk | contribs) (→thanks)(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.

Redspruce

User Redspruce just got off a one week ban, and the first thing he is doing is removing quotes again at Elizabeth Bentley. Note he is not leaving an edit summary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

He is wandering into incivility, and on his second deletion of quotes now at the Bentley article since coming back from his week long ban. See here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note to his talkpage. If there are further problems, let me or some other admin know. --El on ka 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch 0rr for user

As you have worked to restore order to Quackwatch, I thought I'd let you know of my imposition of 0rr on User:Levine2112 following a threat to edit war on that page. Comments welcome, Vsmith (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree that there's problematic behavior, but by what authority are you issuing a 0RR restriction? If an ArbCom case, you need to cite which case, and there needs to be proof that the user has been formally warned ahead of time. Has Levine2112 been so warned? Also, restrictions should probably have time limits. A better way to handle this would be to give him a formal ArbCom warning, with a caution "Don't edit war, try dispute resolution instead." And then if he still edit wars after that, then a brief 0RR restriction might be reasonable. --El on ka 19:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We do have differing approaches :-) I see a blatant threat to revert and edit war as requiring action - not dilly-dallying. Levine2112 is fully aware of the previous problems with that page and the warning at the top of the talk page, so why wait? Simply take preventative action. Which I have done. Anyone else promising to revert and edit war as she/he did will be subject to the same. Vsmith (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, different approaches. :) Though not all other administrators agree with me, I find that when imposing sanctions, or blocks, on established editors, the best way to make restrictions "stick" is to proceed cautiously. Issue warnings first, and then sanctions only if the warnings don't work. I agree that Levine2112 needed a warning, but I think it was a bit hasty to impose 0RR without at least a caution (I see that you have since amended this, good idea). The ultimate result will be the same, right? If he ignores the caution, then we can impose 0RR. But my guess is that he will respect the caution, and be better about engaging at the talkpage.

Proceeding a bit more slowly, serves multiple good purposes. Not just being kinder & gentler to Levine2112, but you can also bet money that other editors are observing how this is handled. For any one person who posts to a page, there are probably 10 or more lurkers who are watching but not posting. In some cases, "good" editors may be frightened away from an article by the conflict, or fear of administrative action. If an administrator is seen as imposing a no-notice sanction, this can increase tension all around, and make it less likely for some of those lurkers to participate at all. But if it is shown that sanctions are implemented in a calm and measured fashion, then other lurking editors who had been hiding from the edit war, may slowly begin to come out of the woodwork and be more likely to participate. Or to put it another way: Imagine if you were editing a highly-controversial article, and suddenly an admin came out of nowhere and slapped a restriction on you without warning. When you complained, you just get told, "You should've known." Wouldn't you see that as slightly unfair? So, it's better to communicate clearly: State what the potential restrictions are, explain how behavior needs to change, explain the consequences if someone's behavior doesn't change, and this can help create a structure which will help to stabilize an article. --El on ka 22:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess my main problem here is that I feel that I've been warned for really doing nothing harmful. The reason Vsmith has given for my warning is that I threatened edit war. However, this is untrue (most likely the result of a misunderstanding somewhere along the lines). Never did I threaten edit-war. I stated the reasons why I was going to revert (an editor had editted againt consensus and without discussion) and then I reverted once and only once. I feel that given the volatile nature of the article and given that there was already a consensus to revert to the last stable version of the article and to discuss all future contentious edits before implementation, my one revert was wholly justified. I made no mention of the continuance of such reverts nor did I hint that I would revert again. So where is this threat of edit war which Vsmith claims I have made? I know that it is just a warning and seeming causes no harm, but I honestly feel it is misplaced. My fear is that similar action from me in the future (that of abiding by consensus, giving an explantion of my actions, etc) will be rewarded with more punishment, which coupled with this ill-given warning may result in a block or ban (even though I have done nothing worthy of such a penalty). Again, I ask that this warning be lifted and we can move on from there. Thanks. -- Levine2112 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Soaps

I've asked a question about temporary recasts and screen caps over at WikiProject Soaps, and would appreciate it if you would comment. A ni Mate 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If everybody would approach situations as you do by giving feedback instead of just taking it upon themselves to delete a person's hard work then we would all be better off. As per your suggestion, I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you but in my opinion, I think the situations dealt to the character makes her quite notable. It's not really a big deal to me whether or not the page stays, but if something is done for one it should be done for all. For instance, on another soap I watch, As The World Turns, there is the character of Liberty Ciccone. This character has also only been with the show for a short period of time and to be honest, the character has done nothing really to stand out, yet has it own separate entry. In my opinion, this particular character will be in the fold for some time and I think it deserves its own page. I do value your advice however and for that I thank you. Phenomenon8980 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. :) And I agree, the soaps articles on Misplaced Pages need a ton of work. :) I have no opinion on Liberty Ciccone, but I'll take a look. As for Melanie's article, go ahead and participate in the discussion at Talk:Melanie Layton, and we'll try to figure out how to deal with things. --El on ka 15:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Certain soaps seem to have more editors focused on them than others, so there are plenty of instances where similar stubs exist, and one will be deleted or merged and the other will go unnoticed (Liberty Ciccone still has a relationship list, which tells me the article hasn't really been looked at in awhile). As a whole I don't even really think every character on a show needs an article, especially from the perspective that articles on fictional characters are supposed to be more than just plot summary. And to be honest, the Melanie Layton "article" is simply plot summary with too much detail. Think about reading that article two years from now, is it important to note that Nick stopped by the police station for his passport?? Shows with more active editors have been moving towards composite articles for minor and new characters (Minor characters of Days of our Lives and One Life to Live minor characters) to protect content from deletion; many soap stubs and articles have been challenged/deleted on notability issues by editors outside the Project.— TAnthony 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

I guess you think this is appropriate? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

SA, which edit do you think is improper? You aren't using a proper diff, but one with an intermediate edit. That's confusing. -- Fyslee / talk 14:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for assisting. I'm a bit concerned at Missioned (talk · contribs) created right during the edit war. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to my talk page

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

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

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

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

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

Talkpage etiquette

Hiya, FYI, when an editor deletes comments from their talkpage, it is bad form to restore them. People are allowed to blank their own talkpages, except in certain rare situations (such as deleting unblock notices). See also WP:BLANKING. --El on ka 04:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. --Surturz (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Namespace pedantry

I have moved Chiropractic/Admin log to Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(blink) Um, sure, that's fine, but why? --El on ka 06:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not a article - ain't that obvious? And incidentally, is it serving any useful purpose since it is an orphan? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I just created it a few minutes ago. ;) Standby, I'll be starting a thread on the article soon. --El on ka 06:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted. --El on ka 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw this over at AN and decided to pitch in as best I can, question, have you ever thought of using edit notices to convey either sanctions or the page rules? MBisanz 11:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be polite for me to tell you that I removed your comments that I didn't use the talk page since I have. I didn't for that one revert using only the edit summary to explain my actions which was probably not enough given the amount of times the same edit has since been reverted. I have commentted on the talk page since not being aware that warring would continue which was poor judgement on my part to use only the edit summary. Anyways, I just want to let you know that I changed it because it was not accurate to say I don't use the talk page. I am not active at all on this article but I do lurk and occasionally I make a comment, usually on the talk page not edits to the main article. I hope this clears things up and my apologies for any confusions. --CrohnieGal 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Crohnie, thanks for the explanation. :)

MBisanz, great! On a complex page like this, the more admins the better. I'd looked through history going back a month for the list at the admin log, but thanks for your additions. As for "edit notices", I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but if you'd like to try something, go ahead. Looking at the AN thread, where we've already had 3 arbs commenting (Morven, FT2, Sam Blacketer), it looks like the Pseudoscience case is okay to use. Are there any sanctions in particular that you think would be helpful? My own inclination would be to just start with a clear announcement that the article is within the scope of the case, and that might calm things down right off the bat, without any further actions needed. --El on ka 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Click this link , see anything different? I can do that to any page with any message content. I'll have to think of the best way to approach things. Probably some strong invocations of NOR, NPOV, and RS to start with, then seeing who disagrees with them. MBisanz 17:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you mean like a talkpage banner? Sure. --El on ka 17:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, on the admin log page, I recommend winnowing the list down to make it more useful. Right now it seems to include all editors who have done anything to the article, even if it was reverting vandalism or making some other minor edit over the last few months. So I'd recommend that we (1) Focus just on editors who have done something within the last 30 days (we can always add more names as they appear); (2) Only use names that have actually made a substantive edit to the article, or participated in a major way in the talkpage discussions. I'm ambivalent on whether or not to include the names of any editor who happened to pop in to offer comments in an RfC, but then didn't stick around.

The main reason for the list, is to make it easier to enforce discretionary sanctions. The list provides a quick list of the major players, including who's an admin, and which ones are "uninvolved" admins vs. which ones are "involved" admins, as well as providing at-a-glance coverage of who's been warned and/or is under restrictions. Which doesn't mean that it has to be done my way... I'm just offering suggestions from what I've found useful in the past. :) --El on ka 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question if you don't mind? On the log you removed yourself as an editor when others are questioning whether you should be active in this, why would you remove yourself like this since it is questioned on the article talk page and also at the administrator board? I'm not trying to cause trouble but this looks like you are changing the goal posts a bit. Thanks in advance, just trying to understand, --CrohnieGal 14:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let me try and answer: I reworked the list to only include those editors who have been active on the article or its talkpage within the last month. The purpose of the list is for the use of administrators in managing the page. We're not trying to provide a comprehensive database of everyone who made even minor edits, but instead keep track of who the major players are, and/or who the disruptive ones are. As for my status, see WP:UNINVOLVED: The only edits that I have made to the page were minor citation fixes. It would be a real stretch to say that just because someone adds a link or fixes an ISBN number, that that removes their neutrality regarding an article. The core issue is whether or not an admin could exercise tools without expressing a bias on the content of the article. And I assure you, I have no preference on the article's content, and am not biased either way. My actions are not going to be directed towards forcing some preferred version of article content. Instead, my goal is to reduce disruption. Right now it's a very very complex case, since there are reasonable voices on both sides of the discussion, but they just keep butting heads and do not seem able to compromise. This has been going on for months. There's also an issue that some of these editors seem to be overflowing this dispute to multiple other pages around Misplaced Pages. In effect, they are treating the project as a battleground. But Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. We're not here to determine the "truth" about Chiropractic, we're just here to write a nice encyclopedic article which presents significant views about the subject in a neutral way. --El on ka 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks, that is a reasonable answer to my question. Though I do hold the opinion still that you are more involved than you think you are, I can totally except this response and I do agree with you about some of the editors looking for a battle. Thanks for taking the time to explain to me what you are attempting to do though, I appreciate it a lot. --CrohnieGal 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why delete talk from article comments page?

Dear MiszaBot It looks like you deleted a huge chunk from the article commentary page on the pro se self-represented article. I thought that those pages were not supposed to be edited. Isn't that against Misplaced Pages policy? Am I misunderstanding something? If so, please tell me. Thank you kay sieverding (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kay, Elonka simply archived some sections of the talk page, and I think her actions were entirely appropriate. The sections that were archived are still available for review at Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 2, for which there is a link at the top of the talk page. This is a standard activity that is done on long talk pages where some sections of the discussion have apparently been completed. Please note that this is Elonka's talk page, not MiszaBot's. I think you may have thought it was MiszaBot's because you initially posted this at the top of the page, and saw the coding that Elonka has set up for MiszaBot to archive this page on a regular basis. More information about archiving can be found at Help:Archiving a talk page. Risker (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Apologies to Elonka if I have overstepped here, but thought you were probably offline and this could be addressed quickly

Thank you for your explanation. 24.183.52.130 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. And I don't mind at all. I know a lot of people watch my talkpage, so if there's a complaint here about something, and someone else feels that they can handle it, feel free to jump on it. It's the wiki-way, we all work together on the same project. :) --El on ka 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your threat

I've responded on my talk page. Read it and pay attention. RedSpruce (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification of your involvement at chiropractic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some concern

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

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

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

brenneman 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

brenneman 04:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag Team

It seems you have impressed some of us with the concept of a tag team , and it has been invoked at a RfC against 3 individuals here : . This would be the first use of the "tag team" accusation in a RfC, although MBisanz seems to think it a procedural fault to bring an action against a group. Interesting... Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Would you, or some other admin, mind notifying all the people listed here of the Discretionary sanctions? I think everyone who edits that page should be notified. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm contemplating how best this should be handled. Hopefully every user who has ever edited the page need not be notified. I'm thinking of the possibility of using an edit notice to let people know that editing this article means different ground rules than editing other articles and would like Elonka and other admins input into that idea. MBisanz 08:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My philosophy, built from experience in doing this on several articles now, is to not warn editors unless their behavior actually becomes an issue. This is because if an editor is doing nothing at all disruptive, it can be a bit jarring to them to get an admin-issued notice at their talkpage. They tend to react negatively, with an attitude of, "What did I do to deserve that?" And other editors who might be interested in editing the page, may be scared off if they think that if they touch the page, they're going to get what looks like a warning on their talkpage. Not to mention that if an editor is formally warned, their name can then be added to the "log of notifications" on the ArbCom page, which again, some editors regard as a negative stigma. So, my feeling is that the notification "card" is something that admins should keep from playing until absolutely necessary. This also makes it more effective. If an editor does do something which might violate any editing conditions, I think it a far better idea to just post a gentle reminder on their talkpage and point out that there are some restrictions on the article which they may not have been aware of. Then if and only if they ignore that reminder and continue doing something disruptive, should they get the big scary "ArbCom case notification" template. Or in other words, my sequence of steps is usually:

Explain just at the article talkpage, the expected behavior. This is a general notice to everyone on the page, without singling out anyone in particular. Then if there were continued problems from an editor:
Post a "nudge" at the user's talkpage, advising them in a friendly and good faith way about the expected behavior. Then if they ignored that:
Post a "caution" at the user's talkpage, diffing behavior of concern, and telling them clearly what behavior needed to change, and that they run the risk of further consequences if the behavior doesn't change. Then if they ignored that:
Give them the formal ArbCom case notification (it's a big scary template, and tends to get people's attention). This would also have the dual wakeup call, in that if I had a "list of editors" on the article talkpage, that editor's name would move up on the article talkpage from the "Other editors" section to the "Editors notified of sanctions" section, and their name is now also formally logged to the ArbCom case page as a "Notified editor". Then if they continued to disrupt after that:
Diff the disruption to their talkpage, and tell them clearly to stop it, or there's a ban/block in their future. Then if they ignored that too:
On the next infraction, I'd issue a brief ban, tailored to whatever it was they'd been doing. This might be a ban on editing the article, a ban on the article and talkpage, a ban from editing a section of the article (like I once banned an editor from editing the article lead and related image caption), or something else creative. A few times I've issued bans by telling editors that they were working too much on one article, so they weren't allowed to work on that article again until their contrib list had balanced out to at least a 50-50 split, to show that they were working on other articles too!
If they violated the ban, then I'd either expand the scope of the ban, or proceed to a block (rare, but it's happened, usually in the Eastern Europe topic area). But the vast majority of editors will respect a ban. They may complain about it long and loud, but they won't violate it.

Note that discretionary sanctions are a bit of an art form, so the above steps are a general path. I wouldn't necessarily follow each step rigidly. For example, when dealing with an obvious SPA, I might proceed to a ban very rapidly, whereas when dealing with an established editor, I might pause at one rung on the ladder and give the editor multiple good faith warnings before proceeding to the next step. But this is tricky to do, as sometimes it's good to give an editor that extra chance, but on the other hand the other editors on that article may get upset that someone is getting special treatment.

I also found it very helpful to keep an admin log which documented each thing that was done. This served multiple purposes:

When there are a lot of editors involved, it helps keep track of who's been notified, warned, etc.
It's a good way to keep things transparent, so that other admins can see what I'm doing (and if there are multiple admins managing the article, so I can keep track of what they're doing too!)
It's an excellent way to protect the admin from further charges of abuse. For example, when imposing restrictions I routinely have someone attack me a couple months later with a charge like, "OMG, she was blocking and banning people left and right!" At which point I just provide a link to the actual log, and show that no, not a single editor was blocked or banned, it was just some warnings issued. The logs might be right on the article talkpage, or might be on a subpage of the article, depending on how much traffic there was. Examples: Talk:Quackwatch#Admin log, Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Admin log. I also once created a log that was a "topic log", and also the "second opinion" template: {{2O}}, so if I did something that I really wanted other admins to review, I could flag it on the log page, and then another admin could weigh in with their thoughts on whether they concurred or not.
Lastly, other non-admins generally quickly learn to watch the log page, so they can keep track of what's going on. If there's an edit war among 5 editors and one of them gets a formal warning, the other 4 often slow down and edit more carefully, since they know that they're being watched. I call this the "cop with a radar gun" effect. People on the highway will drive way over the speed limit, but if they see a cop, everyone suddenly slows down, because they know what the speed limit is supposed to be. ;)

Anyway, that's my advice on issuing warnings, based on hard-won experience in this arena. I'm not going to say that I do this stuff perfectly, but I figured I'd pass along lessons I've learned from doing this in the past. :) --El on ka 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounded like MBisanz was talking about a message on the article talk page (which is already there), so it all works out in the end. I was imagining some sort of path like that, giving users as many chances as possible (within reason) before actually applying sanctions. Hopefully, though, people will behave and we won't actually need to do anything. That'd be ideal. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz is also talking about a banner which would show up to anyone that clicked "edit" on the article. For example, check the banner on the edit screen of this one: So we could potentially have a banner like, "Warning: Be aware that this article has been subject to considerable disruption in 2008, and therefore the community has decided that all edits may be subject to increased supervision by volunteer administrators. As of September 2008, edits are subject to additional restrictions, as follows (list). For more information, or to ask any questions, please see Talk:Chiropractic#ArbCom restrictions."

I have mixed feelings on such a banner. On the one hand, it would clearly communicate restrictions to anyone trying to edit the page. On the other, it might scare some people off. Trying to put myself into the frame of mind of a relatively new editor, if I was intending to do a casual edit somewhere, and I clicked on "edit" and saw that banner, my next reaction might be, "I don't know what's going on here, but it sounds bad, I think I'll just avoid editing this page altogether." Which definitely isn't what we want! So I see that kind of a banner as maybe a last resort, one step shy of actually protecting the page from all edits. Such a banner might be useful if an article were being targeted by dozens of editors flowing through in a neverending stream. However, in the case of this particular article though, Chiropractic, the disruption seems to be being caused by a finite group of editors. Looking through all the names that have been flowing through the article and talkpage over the last 30 days, the significant edits are basically being made (or attempted) by a dozen editors. Everyone else seems to just be passing through to make AWB fixes or vandalism reversion or whatnot.

Trying to drill down further to where the disruption is coming from, the main problems I'm seeing are:

Excessive reverting, which can of course be addressed with a revert restriction.
Personal attacks / incivility at the talkpage. Some of this appears to be subtle, of the nature of, "I'm keeping this article neutral, and you're a POV-pusher" (with of course charges being leveled from both sides), and comments like, "Well, I know what's best for this article, and you don't, so you should stop editing it and just let me handle things, okay?"
- A particular tactic here which concerns me, are bad faith accusations, or what I call "diff-less mudslinging". I see editor A accusing editor B of all kinds of behaviors: "Gawd, editor B is a huge problem at this article, he edit wars all the time, he never respects consensus, and he obviously doesn't know anything about this topic and shouldn't even be allowed to edit here. He's just a POV-pushing troll that we need to get rid of." I think that sometimes these kinds of no-evidence or weak-evidence charges (which are usually false anyway) can be extremely damaging to the editing environment, and we should consider banning editors who make false charges towards other editors, even if the pot-stirring editor isn't doing anything that's specifically targeted at the article itself.
Tag teams. I am very concerned by editors who are just stopping by to revert established editors, but without engaging in discussion at the talkpage
Disagreement on whether consensus does or doesn't exist on a disputed content issue. Especially cases of undue weight, with some editors saying, "the following information will make the article more neutral" and other editors saying, "No, it'll make it less neutral."
- For these, it's of course best to pursue dispute resolution; but
- Another problem I'm seeing at the talkpage, is editors who are trying to make declarations (as they see it) of what the consensus is or isn't. So admins can help there by:
  - Ensuring that DR steps really were followed, and it's not just a case of people saying that the steps were followed;
  - As admins, we could occasionally perhaps make a formal declaration of, "The consensus is (whatever)" to try and put a matter to rest for awhile (Lifebaka, since you do a lot at AfDs, this might be perfect for you)
  - Identifying those editors who are being disruptive consensus-blockers. For example, if a source is being debated as to whether or not it's reliable, and it's gone through discussion and WP:RSN and an RfC and it's fairly obvious that the community feels that it's a reliable source, but there are still a few editors who just have their heels dug in and are refusing to let the matter drop, it may be time to consider whether those editors are clearly tendentious and should just be banned from the page for a certain period of time. I remember one discussion I was watching, where some editors were trying hard to find a compromise, and a couple editors who were obviously working in concert were just flat out saying, "No, no compromise is possible." In such cases, I'm inclined to simply ban any "no compromise" editors from the discussion, and let the other editors (who do feel that a compromise is possible) keep working on trying to hammer out a mutually-agreeable consensus.

Thoughts? --El on ka 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on the banner. The talk page notice should do it for all the people involved in the dispute, and that way people just dropping by to revert vandalism and the like won't even have to know about it to worry about it. However, since it could become necessary, do we know how to put up such a banner? I'd assume somewhere in the MediaWiki: namespace, but I'm not sure.

Excessive reverting and even tag teams shouldn't be too difficult to deal with. 1RR or 0RR restrictions to the edit warriors or page protection should handle those relatively easily. Spotting obvious civility issues and personal attacks isn't difficult either, so I'll just make sure I keep an eye out for the more veiled stuff.

I shouldn't have too much trouble reading discussions and finding consensus. Usually it's either obvious there is consensus one way, or there isn't consensus. It's also relatively easy to tell when users are simply trying to hold up consensus, as they usually refuse to drop the stick and step away from the horse carcass. I'll keep my eye out to see if it's needed, but poke me if I'm missing the obvious ever. lifebaka++ 21:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I can do a banner in the MediaWiki space, I've done a bunch of them and it is easy to do. I like the idea of 1RR and a clerked talk page. Ideally anything contested via a revert should go to the talk page, and if it is not clear what consensus is there, to an external forum like RSN. By formalizing a process like that, hopefully editors will focus on the content and not on the people making the edits. Of course, if an editor doesn't want to go along with that, a page ban will probably be the best option. Usually these situations seem to be one or two editors on each side of the debate who have The Truth, once they start following the rules or are excluded from the situation, things should calm down. MBisanz 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good method, Elonka. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I like the "1RR and clerked talkpage" idea. As for the MediaWiki banner, has this method been documented anywhere? I'm very curious how it works. :) --El on ka 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I'm very positively impressed by your descriptions of how you handle disputes. I was reading your first long comment above and before I got to your signature, I was thinking "this must be Elonka writing this." I agree completely and emphatically with most of what you said. I have reservations, though, about the idea of banning "no compromise" editors (speaking in general, not about one article in particular). That may be the right thing to do in some circumstances, but I would suggest tremendous hesitation and discussion before doing such a thing, since it may be detrimental to consensus and NPOV: in other words, there's the possibility that the "no compromise" editors are right or at least that their POV needs to be included somehow. Lack of compromise can be a sign of lack of collaborative spirit, but occasionally it's a sign that people feel very strongly about something and perhaps their POV needs to be carefully considered. It might turn out, for example, that they feel that they've already compromised considerably and are being asked to compromise further. Banning some editors for refusing to compromise might produce a more stable article and a more civil talk page, but just possibly at the expense of producing a more biassed article: if so, that may be more of a degeneration than an improvement. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm extremely concerned that banning "no compromise" editors will wind up damaging Misplaced Pages. There is no reason to compromise with people that are here for the explicit reason of inserting support for nonsense into Misplaced Pages. Some people are here to describe parapsychology and homeopathy, others are here to promote it. People that are here to promote it are here to damage Misplaced Pages, and compromising with them would damage Misplaced Pages.Kww (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And others are here to debunk it, an equally damaging activity. Compromising is necessary in many situations, but not always, since NPOV is not negotiable- as long as there isn't gang editing, consensus is a good way of determining some semblance of NPOV. Sanction any editor who flogs a dead horse against consensus, edit wars, IDIDNTHEARTHATs, or attacks others. Often you have to have several factors: if an editor is right, but there is gang editing going on, they may be "flogging a dead horse," but still be good Wikipedians. Elonka, of all people, ought to be able to deal with this. Simply "not compromising" is not a bad thing in itself, if the issue is basic. But not compromising when there is no gang editing and no basic issue is at stake is pretty bad. It is very unusual that you can't find a compromise. I've been in the position of not compromising, but that was usually when I was applying an ArbCom decision and I didn't think that further discussion was called for. There are issues with policy at Chiro on which I would not compromise: do we allow SYNTH? No. There isn't any reason to compromise on that once it is determined by consensus (which to me means super-supermajority of 70 or 90 percent) whether SYNTH has occurred.

So I'm asking Elonka what she means here. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)To agree with and expand on kww's comment: I think it's a real disservice to the work of the encyclopedia to see editors as divided into different interest groups with equal standing, who have to reach a compromise with each other in order to arrive at a finished article. This attitude encourages thinking of the project as a battlefield, at the same time it fails to consider the fundamental task of the project. The task is not to compromise between different points of view held by the editors present, but to fairly and accurately represent the topic as it is portrayed by reliable secondary sources. The consensus that needs to be arrived at is the consensus of reliable sources. To consider those who are trying to hold out for an accurate reflection of reliable sources on a topic as recalcitrant and disruptive elements who must be sanctioned or banned from editing until they are willing to compromise the quality of the encyclopedia in the interest of a "collegial editing environment," is to fail to understand the mission of the project.

This is why I don't edit here, even though I am concerned about the abysmal quality of articles in areas where I have some background and knowledge, because I don't see the commitment to the quality of the product that I'd like to see. I don't care to work in an environment where quality, measured by how well the consensus of reliable sources is reflected in the article regardless of the wishes of individual editors, seems to take second place to making everyone happy no matter whether their purpose is to accurately reflect the consensus of reliable sources or some other agenda that would erode the quality even further. Misplaced Pages is already a joke in circles I frequent, and sometimes, watching what goes on inside here, I wonder if people here have simply lost touch entirely with how this looks from the outside. Outside, it's real simple; people want their information accurate and reliable and trustworthy; they don't want to be sold snake oil, and they don't really care if ensuring that the information is accurate and reliable involves hurting someone's feelings. Woonpton (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what you say. There may be an error in thinking it is really relevant to this discussion, which revolves around putting sanctions on the article. The tone you use makes it seem as if you want reliability enforced- in other words, for admins to rule on content. There is something of that sort at Citizendium, I think. WP has its limitations. But the goal at least of the process is that negative and disruptive elements such as debunkers or wackos are weeded out in terms of content. Perhaps it doesn't work, but that is indeed the goal per the sourcing policies and NPOV etc. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, Woonpton, we could have both. Generally the former is more important, but there are some areas on Misplaced Pages where people get so caught up in whatever battle is going on in meta-discussions or between different ideologies that they lose sight of this. That's why the ArbCom has created the sanctions for these areas, to cool it down to a point where constructive discussion and work towards the overall goal of writing an encyclopedia can continue. At least, that's how I view my purpose in this area. Martinphi above is right that it isn't my job to actually police the content itself, though; lord knows I have far too little knowledge in the area to do a proper job of that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple, Woonpton. On each topic, different people have different opinions about what version of an article follows the sources properly and what version of an article is NPOV. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear what people are saying about the "no compromise" issue. And I understand the concerns, though I find it difficult to share them. To quote administrator GRBerry: "Administrators are not idiots." Instead, we're going to be on the lookout for editors who seem more interested in blocking consensus, than enabling it. We are talking about areas where a compromise is obviously going to be far more useful to the project, than an editor continually beating a dead horse and refusing to budge.

To see (other) cases where the discussion went on far past all reasonable levels, to the point where the community just looked on with ridicule, see Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars. So for our purposes, one of the goals of discretionary sanctions might be seen as preventing an article from landing on WP:LAME. :) --El on ka 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Elonka, I've been on both sides. I was an editor taking it way past anything. I was "blocking consensus," and relative to a majority of editors in the area I was beating a dead horse: they'd decided how it should be, there was consensus. And what resulted was the ArbCom on the Paranormal, which among other things took principles from an essay I wrote for the decision. And many, many admins thought I was a POV pusher who ought to be crushed. So, what I'm saying is that it's really hard to tell sometimes. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on ChrisO

He is one again threatening me with blocking in the middle of the ongoing content dispute. As you know, this is not the first time he has done this. He has apparently been canvassing some administrators off-wiki on the IRC and elsewhere, to block me for him, to get rid of me, so that he would gain an upper hand in a content dispute. .Please see this thread as well. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Battle_of_Opis#ChrisO.60s_conduct_2 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --CreazySuit (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --El on ka 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for maintaining decorum in your comments towards me during what may have been a stressful situation. I appreciate it. You are welcome on my talk page any time you have concerns about my activities. Jehochman 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Account deleting

Good morning mam,

I have to ask you if you could delete my current account because I don´t use it more for Misplaced Pages.

Thanks.--Germany2008 (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Usually there is no special action required in these cases... If you stop editing, the account doesn't have to be purged from the database, it just goes inactive. However, you might be interested in reading Misplaced Pages:Right to vanish. --El on ka 00:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Randi

It looks quite clear to me, but I'd like your opinion on whether this is indeed a BLP violation- The only reason I have a doubt is that the researchers are not mentioned by name, but it is sourced directly to a source which I'm sure mentions them by name. Thanks (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the other editor is willing to compromise... See if maybe you can find a wording that both of you can live with? --El on ka 05:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was changed to something that's fine. I really didn't need help with the article, but rather a judgment check- I guess you agree that in such a situation it is actually a violation of BLP? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not look into it very deeply, so couldn't say one way or the other at this point. --El on ka 06:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please i need neutral admin assistance

Hello,on White people article there are other admins who are harassing me because i am in favor of removing the gallery(which is there postion also) the gallery was already on the article via earlier consenus but other editors want it down now with out giving time for other editors to chime in--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka thank you for being fair and your right,but if you could take a look at the talk page for White people we could use a neutral admin their thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

i called it vandalism because the admin was going against a previous consensus that was established earlier without trying to gain a new consensus first to remove the content, that can be construed as vandalism removal of content a few times not just once--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's not vandalism. It might or might not be called tendentious, disruptive, POV-pushing, and/or a host of other words, but vandalism is not one of them. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. Vandalism is when it's clear obvious "trying to damage the project" stuff, such as blanking an entire page, changing someone's birthdate to the year 2355, or removing an image of a building and replacing it with an image of genitalia. That's vandalism. But just disagreeing on content, or whether or not there is or isn't consensus? Nope, not vandalism. --El on ka 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

so i can just go around removing random content from articles because i disagree and its not vandalism?

also i hope you noticed the bogus warnings on my talk page,that was a direct attempt to try and make me seem like a problem editor on that particluar article when im a regular editor and am heavily involved in disccusion on the article if you bothered to notice--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you went around removing random content, that would be vandalism. If you were removing it because you had a good faith disagreement, it would not be vandalism. It might be a violation of WP:POINT though. But that would depend on other factors. --El on ka 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry but on second thought you appear to be a biased admin in favor of other admin sorry to have bothered you --Wikiscribe (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for the warning. I did not revert more than three times though, but added some information on few of the edits which were not reverts. But I have no intention to edit war. I believe the issue can be handled in the discussion page. Unfortunately trust has broken down between the two sides. My proposal was simply to mention all different points of view, but the other side claims it is undo weight and I have challenged their viewpoint. Actually I believe if anything, an article by Lambert (the Professor of Grayson) in 2007 has more weight than the translation of Grayson (1975) since Lambert examines Grayson's translation and rejects it. Both sides have offered different POV's on why one should be better than another. My suggestion is to simply list all viewpoints of Akkadian translators in chronological order(Lambert, Grayson, Oppenheim) and the dispute will simply be resolved. --Nepaheshgar 01:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, you did not revert more than three times. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the policy though, to head off any possible future problems. Continuing to discuss things in good faith is the best solution, carry on. :) --El on ka 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thank you. Unfortunately the user does not wait for others to respond and after 3RR he has done another revert. I of course will not do another revert, since I am not an admin and I will get the full 24 hours instead of 3 reduced to 1 hours. I believe this is unfair and later a person who was not involved in the discussions came and r.v.'ed to ChrisO's version. --Nepaheshgar 13:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if ChrisO is instigating trouble, please report him at the noticeboards instead of blocking him yourself. It only takes a minute. Thanks. Jehochman 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I have withdrawn my complaint in good faith. --Nepaheshgar 14:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Block

Did I just see your name come up on the block log for ChrisO? I don't know the reasons behind it, but I can tell you this: no matter if you were right or wrong, doing that block yourself is like admin-suicide. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Check his talkpage for more. It's all resolved at this point. --El on ka 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind the gun safety, the bullet didn't hit anyone, so why the fuss? --Abd (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly

Would you like to join a round table discussion about nationist edit warriors and Misplaced Pages? If so, can you suggest a few times that might work? The commitment is 30 minutes for setup, and 60 minutes for the show. We are thinking about 10pm Eastern/9pm Central on Wednesday. Would that work for you? The mechanics are Skypecast, and it can be recorded so those who miss the broadcast can playback . Jehochman 06:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)