User talk:Elen of the Roads

Keeping order at WP:TITLE

Hi Elen.

As you know there has been a good deal of trouble with the core policy page WP:TITLE in the last month. Born2cycle has been at the centre of it all, and indeed may be seen as the cause – through his editing to restore a version of the recognisability criterion that had been superseded in open discussion in May 2011, without dissent. Now, I am aware that others will have a different view of history, and will indignantly repudiate the summary just given. So let me now cut to the immediate problem, since life and the day are short.

Just as your recent administrative encounter with B2C was coming to a conclusion, he started an RFC at WT:TITLE. It is still active (a wordy, micromanaged RFC that has some slim hope of moving things forward, though I would have done it entirely differently myself). Instead of working toward a consensual outcome, one of the commenters in the RFC, JCScaliger, decided to revert the recognisability guideline to the form he and B2C preferred (see this edit and the half dozen on each side of it, including my own). Indeed, JCS rather disruptively reverted the whole page (with unrelated changes included) to its state at 21 December (soon after B2C's initial controversial edit). This was in direct contradiction to earlier direction by admin Kwami, who then reverted JCScaliger. And you can see the rest.

My own role at the page has always been merely to clarify wording, links, and the like – except when I see blatantly non-consensual editing of vital policy, such as PMAnderson's when he sought to word its provisions in a way that would diminish the role of WP:MOS.

Kwami's integrity has been impugned for his attempts to keep order (see his talkpage; but consult the history, since he may have removed the whole dismal discussion). I have acted before to support what he had restored as the most recent stable version. And despite threats against him, and the continuing threats of litigious action against me that impel me to stay off the talkpage till they are retracted, I am right now about to edit again to restore the page to that same state. Kwami, intimidated and compromised by unfair accusations, may now find it difficult to act at all in the case.

I hope that you will take things in hand in the way you see fit. I put myself in some peril, because the page needs stability and above all should not be edited through bullying and chaotic process. Please bear that in mind if you do decide to use your knowledge of events and participants in any intervention you may deem appropriate. I don't care so much how details of the page stand for now, so long as they are not left that way through wikilawyering and brute intimidation.

O, I should bring this recently constructed wall of pseudo-legislation to your notice also (it has been linked at Kwami's talkpage): User:Born2cycle/Status_quo_stonewalling. See especially provisions about asking admins to help. ☺

Thank you!

Noetica^Tea? 04:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That new essay I wrote was almost entirely inspired by Noetica's behavior at WT:AT. In the discussions since Dec 21, we now have 12 people in favor of the wording that Noetica reverted: Kotniski, EdChem, PBS, Kai445, Born2cycle, Powers, WhatamIdoing, JCScaliger, Enric Naval, Eraserhead, Greg L and Dohn Joe. As far as I know, not one person has been identified who supports the wording to which Noetica reverted for any substantive reason, including the 4 editors involved in putting that wording in originally in May 2011. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See also: User talk:Kwami § Involved admin

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To make this clearer, perhaps:

• Noetica and a couple of his friends made a suggestion some time ago, that we adopt a new form of title, involving substantial use of unnecessary disambiguation. This did not gather much support, partly because of one of the sentences in the first section of WP:TITLE.
• Noetica then boldly edited the sentence, and this became controversial.
• Noetica then started an RFC of his own, which got seven opinions, all for language that included the key phrase that Noetica finds inconvenient. So far so good. But Noetica then abandoned the RFC and made procedural complaints.
• He now reverts to the language he prefers. He does not discuss these reversions.
• Born2cycle has, in response to this, started an RFC, but nobody has !voted in it. Instead, it has become a discussion, which is what RFCs really ought to do.
• All this would be no problem, except that one of Noetica's friends, an admin called Kwamikagami, has taken to protecting the page, always on Noetica's version. Searching talk pages for Kwami and Noetica will confirm that they frequently work together, and usually agree. (He also expressed a strong opinion on the underlying issue.
• As for my own edit, it was an effort to reduce this to the baseline before Noetica was bold, after Noetica's last undiscussed exact revert. There hasn't been very much happening since Noetica began this, and I was going to repair the incidental damage. But Kwami reverted me before I finished commenting on the talk page, and threatened me; he has never said anything to Noetica.
• For an independent opinion on this matter, see (for example), this edit summary: Undid revision by Kwamikagami. The consensus is quite clear. I am wikifriends with those who oppose this edit and have recently been at war with a major advocate of it. I am uninvolved, not encumbered by past wikidrama, and can read.

Please get Kwami's one-sided adminship out of the way; the revert-warrior we can handle ourselves. There does seem to be a cultural problem at MOS; as another editor said, on another issue: "Consensus" here (and at WP:AT) seems to mean "whatever Noetica decides". We've had difficulty defining consensus in the past - I'm glad we've now reached a clear and easily applicable interpretation of the concept. But we've seen these cliques before, and the normal process of dispute resolution has taken care of them. JCScaliger (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C, I have now provided you with one central location to have this discussion: Elen's talkpage. You have made your speech? Good. You too, JCScaliger? (Yours is riddled with errors: for example, I started no RFC; and the bit about me and consensus is from Kotniski, the author of the version of WP:TITLE that you, B2C, and he have doggedly insisted on resurrecting. It concerns a page at which I have made just six edits, ever – and insisted, against him, on slow consensual development.) Good. Now, B2C: please do not carry this matter on at great length in several places simultaneously. As for your references to the mounting groundswell of common-sense support of your position, forgive my scepticism. (You would make a great lawyer. I mean it!) We are yet to have a dispassionate dialogue on the issue. That is to say, without actual appeals to WP:ANI and WP:AN (and threats of more), talk of an RFC/U against you (and possibly me for standing up to your bullying), administrative deletion of "dirtfiles" that you bragged of creating against those who do not share your opinion of the Right and the Just, the loss of an honest admin who was deeply committed to evidence and fairness in the RM process, and your continuing appeals over a failed RM once you had 1) called for it to be re-opened after its extended two-week trajectory because you had not commented there and 2) called for editors like myself who most eloquently opposed you to be "discounted" because they often disagree with you.

Now, all just wait for Elen to comment, if she is ready to grasp this nettle and twist it. I want to wait for her to say something too. No one gains by yet another epic rehearsal of tired issues. Just sit, and just wait. Quietly.

I have reverted yet another completely non-consensual edit by JCScaliger, and one by B2C. I reserve the option of doing that until we have supervision of the situation from Elen, or whichever other admin will step in now that Kwami has been harassed off the page.

Noetica^Tea? 06:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, are you suggesting that some if not all of the 12 who have expressed clear rational support for the "familiar with" wording said what they said because the dialog was not dispassionate? You have really made stonewalling into an artform. And you're call me the wikilawyer? And what about the complete absence of a single substantive statement in opposition to the "familiar with" wording? How do you explain that?

As to Kwami, hopefully he now understands what unbiased and uninvolved means, and that he was neither when he first got involved in all this. And kudos to Greg L for reverting him despite Kwami's highly inappropriate threats of blocking. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm suggesting you try to shut-TF-up for a change, and sit still, and wait. The earth will not open up under you; the sky will not fall. I'll say NO MORE AT ALL until we have heard from Elen. Noetica^Tea? 06:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody asked Elen if she wants all this?

Noetica's definitions are odd. The edit he describes as non-consensus was supported by half-a-dozen editors on the talk page, for that exact wording. The "harassment" of Kwami consists of reminding him not to wave his mop over an issue on which he expressed a strong opinion. And will this last outburst become civility? JCScaliger (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unclear if she's ignoring us or just not here or what. In any case, I've also asked Will Beback to take a look. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I don't want to be this closely involved, but I note that B2C has now, again, edited the WP:TITLE to his favoured version, knowing full well that this is highly contentious. I'm certainly not going to revert it, but this behaviour seems to be daring valued editors into edit-warring with him, even though the 3RR limit may not technically be breached. We've had enough of the disruption, whatever interpretation individuals may have, and would be pleased for the policy page to be stable in the long-standing version. B2C's version presents significant problems in interpretation, and should remain on the talk page for discussion rather than being foisted on the community before consensus is reached. I do not believe consensus was reached. Thanks. Tony (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"highly contentious" is a code word for "I disagree, but the people asking for change have provided substantial arguments and I haven't; so I am going to make a lot of noise, edit war, and claim that the change is controversial". --Enric Naval (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page is now indefinitely protected at wherever it is at - Kwami was worrying about appearing involved, I have absolutely no opinion on what it should say. Given the effectiveness of Google searches, and that we have the ability to create infinite numbers of redirects, it's all angels dancing on the head of a bloody pin to me. It should not be changed again unless I've managed to lock in a typo or something, until there is a consensus of the community. Born2cycle, that means that more people than you need to speak of their own volition, so you need to temper your immediate desire to respond at length to anyone who says anything different to you. I think you've said your piece sufficiently for the moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Elen, I've been watching the drama with disbelief and have been only marginally involved if at all. Have you looked at the talk page? Although B2C is performing at times at peak aggravation pitch, if you can get past all the smoke, it does appear that B2C is essentially correct in this case. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There's every chance that he is - or he isn't. I haven't looked at the strength of his argument quite deliberately. But, as he has agreed, the way he says things sets people at odds with him, and he then loses any chance of agreement with the proposal. To have a proper Rfc, it needs a lot of voices - if it looks like he's the only one getting a word in, it counts against him. In the meantime, no-one will die, no buildings will burn to the ground, and the project won't stop working because the strapline at the top of a page isn't exactly what people think it should be. Wikipedia isn't paper. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is not a crisis. But while B2C has been the most voluminous participant in the discussion, he is by no means the only one and numerous editors have already many times endorsed the change that he seeks. It seems wrong to allow a very small number of editors, however polite and eloquent they might appear, to hold a page hostage by objecting to a change but refusing to put forward any specifics. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Full support for the protection - Although I am an involved editor in the WP:Title discussions, your protection of the page is a move in the right direction. This is a policy page that has essentially become a load of Babel that provides little if any policy guidance and contains so much conflicting language, it is very difficult to apply coherently in RMs, let alone advise editors on titling in general. The incremental changes that have been occuring over the last 6 months have done nothing but amplify the babel in areas where small groups of editors have their pet views of the world. Good Job. Stick to your guns on this one. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hi Elen - thanks for stepping in here and dealing with what is a very messy situation. Unfortunately, this is merely the latest chapter in a series of personality conflicts that has resulted in a series of talkpage quagmires (and in the prominent departure of at least two fine editors - GTBacchus and Kotniski). On the immediate issue at hand, add me to the list of folks who think that B2C is right in this case, mostly in spite of himself. Looking at what has actually been said substantively since mid-December, there have indeed been about a dozen editors who've expressed support for the "reader familiar with..." language. We all know that B2C is a polarizing figure. But as bkonrad said, this is not solely a B2C issue. 20 editors have participated in some fashion. Please take a look at the substance and past the nasty language and accusations (should be about a 1:5 ratio of substance to nastiness) and see if you can't decide what the will of the community is. And if you don't see consensus, please - outline a path forward so that this issue can be resolved and we can all move on (hopefully not just to the next quagmire). Thanks again for your role here. Dohn joe (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Born2cycle, thank you so much for realising, and reverting. I will read the discussion at the RfC later tonight - I have to go make dinner for my family now. If there is a clear consensus, I'll see if it's time to close yet.

Hi Elen, my original post here was probably TLDR, and I was told to revert it, so I did. However, if you're inclined to read my full statement, it's here: User:Born2cycle/DearElen. I hope you find it helpful. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be adding my bullet points there. Remove them here if you like; thank you for listening. But since Noetica insisted that this was the place to discuss the matter, it seemed reasonable to comply. 23:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Poll to settle this bickering

…is here at WT:AT#Poll.

That’s the best way to solve this issue since there is too much convoluted water under the bridge and mutual mistrust and wikilawyering. Greg L (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. The poll I created a few days allowed for flexibility and nuance, but they complained about it being polarizing, disruptive and controlling. They're dead silent about this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C, have you ever noticed how Hollywood employs stereotypical attributes to cinematically portray certain kinds of characters? You know: the brooding, quiet protagonist or hero who is loath to say more than “Yup” to most questions? A little magnanimity in (counting chickens a bit here) victory goes a long way. Greg L (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Greg, you've reduced a complex problem back to a vote on two versions, which is what Born2cycle kept wanting to make it into. Good job. Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(*wincing*) Oooooh… I detect more than a little disaffected facetiousness there. I note also that you have so-far boycotted the poll. Providing sill another month for the prisoners over there to come out of their cells with their home-made shanks and give each other Turkish-prison butt-stabbings in the courtyard won’t accomplish anything except for prisoners being restricted from the courtyard and still more editors quitting the project because of sore butts. Judging from the sudden influx of new editors, some of whom have commented about having watched the theatrics from a distance, the community welcomes the opportunity to help put this one to bed, which isn’t all that complex of an issue. If you meant otherwise, Dick, please clarify and I will retract this comment. Greg L (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Well, I suppose that’s “participation.” Greg L (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You have had a month to explain what's so complex about it, and a month to respond to the multiple guesses of what you thought the complexity was and the accompanying explanations of why the "familiar with" wording you oppose is a solution to that complexity, and, unless I missed it, you've done neither, but instead engaged in stonewalling tactics like this. Thanks for providing an example right on Elen's page. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a conflict of interest?

Hugh McFadden is being edited by User talk:Hugh McFadden, he has added to more articles [1] mainly poetry I have not read throught them all. He added his name to notable people on the Derry article, which in fairness he is, but I am wondering are his contributions, mainly to his own article a COI? Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:COI. Are any of his edits such that you would revert them if made by anyone else? He hasn't edited his own article since November, his edits seem unproblematic small changes to his bio. And he is upfront about who he is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Elen, I was unsure over it thats why I asked yourself. Thanks for your help.Murry1975 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor has breached your warning

Two weeks ago you warned One Night in Hackney and others (including me) to stop asserting that other people were reincarnations of previous identities. One Night in Hackney is now repeating this assertion here[[2]]. May I ask you to block him immediately as you said you would? He is also engaged in the type of gaming and wikilawyering which caused my recent block. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

He appears to be saying that you are attempting a reintroduction of text connected to the incident where you were blocked a couple of weeks ago.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No he's referring to something completely different. I included text from Doherty's 2010 publication called In the Ranks of Death about an Irish citizen who joined the British army. It turns out there was a reference to him further back in the UDR article but it was deleted. I felt that the knowledge of him being from the Irish Republic was notable enough to include him so I did using the Doherty reference. Rather than discuss any reservations he had about this Hackney decided to revert. In the interim I found another reference to support my text and I have now included it and undid his reversion along with an invite to discuss on the talk page. In the meantime Hackney went to Harry Baxter which I created yesterday and removed information pertaining to Major John Potter who compiled the official history of the UDR. It feels to me as if Hackney is stalking me and is determined to undermine whatever improvements I try to make concerning the Ulster Defence Regiment. We have now made complaints about each other at AE. Your intervention and advice would be very much appreciated at this time. I've also informed Ed Johnston as he too said he would block anyone who made socking accusations.SonofSetanta (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that four editors are in discussion over content at the moment and reaching concensus. Hackney is notable by his absence. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• You will have to learn to live with the fact that everyone can see where everyone else edits. As to Hackney, his edit here was correct and I would have done the same myself. (a) putting (the UDR historian) in brackets after Potter's name is unencyclopaedic, (b) you need a reliable secondary source that he IS the UDR historian, otherwise it's just advertising puff, (c) you don't write biographies of regiments. And if you revert good edits again with similar edit summaries to this, I predict further troubles on the horizon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I accept that I'm not the most experienced editor on Wikipedia and may occasionally require correction but my edits are made in good faith. Then they are deleted without explanation but only on this one article. Often these deletions are reversed by other people. I'm not suggesting thast anyone needs permission to edit what I write, far from it but on the particular article in question there are restrictions and extra politeness is needed - it's not happening: the gaming continues. I can see it happening and I'm receiving e-mails from others who can see it happening. All of us just hope that, eventually, admins will realise what is going on. It's a military article and I want to edit it on that basis. I am not a political editor and don't want to put a POV slant on the article but I, and others, are fighting against those who want to keep certain political information within it. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser Request

Would you mind running a Checkuser on the following accounts: User:Wcdemanager, User:184.13.167.19, and User:184.13.157.72?" The first two have vandalized the WCDE article in the past 4 hours, the last one vandalized the page back on the 19th. The IPs are registered to cities near the school that owns the station. I am pretty certain the account will come back to one of the IPs. There has been alot of vandalism on the WCDE page in the past year and I have an active RPP request open at the moment because of it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey hey! Slow down. No need for a checkuser - if the IP is making the same edits as the account, chances are it's just him logged out. Now, let's be clear. As far as I can se he's not vandalizing the article, he's making edits he thinks are in reasonable faith that you disagree with. You know it causes problems if you throw the term Vandal about. Instead of going at it like a bull in a china shop, let's see if we can get him to confirm why the station website appears to say different. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did attempt to confirm the information given. The person says the station is a WAY-FM Network affiliate. According to the network's official website, the network does not have any affiliates in West Virginia. According to WCDE's official website, they are airing college radio programs, like metal and hip hop. Not the kind of music you would find on a Contemporary Christian station. So, between that and the fact the WCDE page gets tons of vandalism, I marked them both as vandalism. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Davis & Elkins college is a Presbyterian college, so the prospect of affiliation with a contemporary christian radio station isn't madly impossible. Also, the page you are looking at is wildly out of date.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I figure the school's website is out of date (it always seems to be), but WAY-FM's website isn't (or at least shouldn't be). I also couldn't find anything via a Google search linking the two together. But I have seen schools link with national networks. It's rare, but it has happened.

In related news, I readded the standard links to the FCC license, Arbitron and Radio-Locator.com (found at the bottom of all radio station pages. I did add {{fact}} tags to three areas. One to the format in the infobox, one to the format in the text and one to the affiliation in the infobox. Since this user is insisting on having this information there, I am going to put WP:BURDEN down on him. Lastly, since this article is giving me a headache (and has for awhile), I am taking it off my watchlist. Since you have eyes on it (and you are a far better editor/user than I am, without my classic short temper), it is better that you keep an eye on it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just tagging for citations is fine. Go take a break :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I am, just not with that article on my watchlist. Kinda afraid if I take a break, I will never come back. Getting burned out again and fast. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Take short breaks. World won't end if you're off duty for a bit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That file protection...

I wanted it protected with the "bad image" tag, so it couldn't be displayed elsewhere, which some IPs were apparently trying to do. I see it now has been protected as requested. Calabe1992 04:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I don't really know why you closed that thread. This sort of vandalism has been happening for years. What's more disconcerting to me is that active Wikipedians don't know i) what's happening and ii) how to look for it. I'm not going to grandstand, but really, people should know what they're dealing with. Killiondude (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger Boscovich

Hello Elen,

I suggested a neutral point of view, which was accepted by some on both sides, but Philosopher12 continue to remove references and parts of the article. Everyone is entitled to its own opinion/point of view. But, no one has the moral right to remove someone else's references.

However, thank you for protecting the article. Best regards! Ljuboni (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "moral right". It is a matter of neutral editing. If your references were bad, he could remove them. If he's just removing them to support his own point of view, then that's not allowed. Anyway, he can't remove references or anything else from the article because it's locked down. Have you got any further with a third opinion or other forms of dispute resolution? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. My references supporting the Serbian point of view, and they are not only from Serbian sources, but also from British, Italian and so on. For example, how can the official Italian Encyclopedia (and the Italians are one of the "interested parties" - third party, and it is a third opinion, what is a very important) to be a bad reference? Btw, it is one of the best European encyclopedias. He's just removing references to support his own point of view. Unfortunately, the protection expires today.

Another case is interesting. Croatia had a banknote with a portrait of Boscovich, as a Croatian scientist. On the objection of some former Serbian institutions from Croatia and the request of the Government of Italy, Croatia had to stop printing banknote with the portrait of Boscovich, because it was presented as a Croatian scientist. Ljuboni (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you re-protect the article about Roger Boscovich, please? Some users from Croatia deleted Serbian references again. Thank you! Ljuboni (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My little pony nonsense

I sent an e-mail to MuzeMike about this earlier too, was hoping he or another checkuser could have a look at some of these accounts and find the other socks/sleepers. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for such a quick response in solving the problematic vandal IP I reported earlier today! Your work is greatly appreciated by Wikipedia editors. Charles Dayton (Talk) 18:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How and when to end lockdown of WP:AT

Elen, as of this writing, the Poll at WT:AT is 15:0. It’s been over 24 hours. Tony, in Australia is off to bed and has had only one day to participate. I was thinking I might let this go for another 24 hours (allowing Tony to respond to some of the latests observations and suggestions from others after he went to bed) and then motion to close the poll. This assumes the latest snowball-worthy trend doesn’t wildly change.

After motioning and receiving an endorsement or two, I am thinking I would come here since you were the admin who locked down WP:AT. Assuming that the poll concludes with the current consensus view, the community wants to have this version of the WP:AT. So I wonder about procedure, as follows:

1. Assuming the status quo doesn’t wildly change and the current trend continues, how much longer would you wait before motioning to close?
2. After receiving endorsements to close, should I come here with a request to unlock?
3. After unlocking, would you be restoring WP:AT to the community’s desired state or will you be leaving that to someone else (requiring coordination)?

Greg L (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about to look at closing it when you started the poll :) I think it probably needs until sometime tomorrow evening, so I'll take a look at it then. If the community agree to a close, then we can look at unlocking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Then, or even before then, please also consider closing the following sections:

• WT:AT#Clarification of recognizability lost (and all if its subsections)
• WT:AT#Recognisability: the "restored" version is not well founded; what to do next
• WT:AT#Fresh debate: recognisability and related questions
• WT:AT#Protected

After reviewing that, I suspect one might appreciate why I was inspired by this experience to write an essay on status quo stonewalling. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, those have all passed their expiration dates and can grow still more mold in the refrigerator. I don’t wanna deal with them or even think about them. Those threads will eventually be archived, after which they will serve the following three purposes:

1. Editors who fancy that they crafted some great prose containing witty zingers can go there to admire their handiwork;
2. Hard drive space worth 0.002¢ will be occupied with data, which helps sell hard drives and employs the people who make them; and
3. The information entropy in this small corner of the universe will be decreased, which pleases some mathematicians.

Greg L (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And if absolutely not a single word of WP:Title changes in the next 12 months, WP will survive, grow and provide great respite to 1000s of dedicated volunteers. My 2 cents - Don't unprotect this policy page. There are big fish to fry here and we haven't even lit the fire yet. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by Don't unprotect this policy page, Mike? You linked to “WP:Titles” (I don’t know what that has to do with anything) rather than WP:Article titles. If you mean the latter, it can certainly be re‑locked after implementing the community’s wishes; that may be a great idea. But the community consensus is clearly that the page should read per this version. That is the community consensus and it must be respected. Clearly, more work remains to further improve WP:AT in order that the basic principle the community has just spoken to can be better fleshed out with examples and elaboration. That such efforts are upcoming is zero reason to hold the community’s wishes hostage. That would further embolden still more stonewalling, which was a splendid tactic over the last month that musn’t further be rewarded. Greg L (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As well intentioned as your poll was, it presented (IMHO) an intractable Dilemma. Because the criteria and wording surrounding Recognizability is essentially meaningless in any practical way, regardless of how it worded, both versions are essentially OK. One is not more or less meaningless than the other. Despite that fact that editors voted overwhelming for one version, does not in itself imply that version means anything tangible. This is pretty proven out by the discussions that follow, indicating that no one can really explain what it means in a practical way. I must freely admit that I am opposed to the criteria Recognizabiliy even being in the policy and 2) to the constant incremental, and isolated changes to policy that contribute significantly more to contentious behavior among editors than they do to actually building the encyclopedia. Therefore, in the interest of diverting energy to building the encyclopedia, I favor protecting this page for a long period of time to allow rational, serious holistic discussion about our titling policy to take place that is not derailed over minutia debate on this word and that. I would be willing to change that position in the short term, if anyone could tangibly demonstrate how V1 wording vs V2 would substantially improve WP. In other words, tell me how the current version harms WP without impuning the editors who got us to this point. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

Well said, Mike! As "well intentioned" as Greg's clueless attempt to help was, it does nothing to address the problem, which is that B2C has made it nearly impossible to discuss the underlying issues. By some miracle, that discussion has now sort of started, even though B2C refuses to back off. Let's see where it goes before handing him what he wants. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh… I equate this: Despite that fact that editors voted overwhelming for one version, does not in itself imply that version means anything tangible as equating to Just because 16 editors voted in a poll and gave clear reasoning for doing so doesn’t mean they knew what they were talking about. But *I* do. Gosh golly [insert wiki‑pleasantry here], we’ll just have to agree to disagree about that one, M’kay? As to your In other words, tell me how the current version harms WP without impuning the editors who got us to this point, there is no need to even contemplate playing that game; the community consensus as to what wording it now wants is perfectly clear. Novel stonewalling theories that amount to “don’t change the text to the community consensus until *I* am satisfied that a serious holistic discussion has taken place” should not be dignified with any more of a response than I just gave you. Greg L (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why can't I have an opinion about this without being lambasted as you did above? I am not demanding that you or anyone else agree with me, but you in a sense are demanding that I agree with you. Is that a fair assessment? I do however always tend to chuckle when someone claims community consensus on some issue, especially these miniscule, essentially meaningless policy/guideline debates. As of the last count, there are 138,326 active editors of WP. If that is the totality of the community, then in this case I guess 16/138,326 which equals some unfathomly miniscule % must equal community consensus. When the WP blackout was brought up in another debate, editors railed over the fact that merely a 100+ editors hijacked a discussion in support of the blackout and that in no why did that decision reflect community consensus. It all depends on where you stand.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoting you: …but you in a sense are demanding that I agree with you. No I’m not. I would have to be completely out of my mind to presume that I may require that you to see things my way. I’m saying that I disagree 100 percent with you about everything you wrote. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, that may be my motion at closing, Elen. I might motion that the consensus couldn’t be any clearer; that WP:AT be changed to the verbiage desired by the community; and that the page remain locked for an indeterminate period of time—until it is clear that an atmosphere of collaborative consensus-building is consistently exhibited on the talk page. If history serves as a reliable predictor, you might elect to just unprotect the page after 72 hours, which would allow everyone’s jets to cool off, which will be making that *tink*… *tink* sound of overheated metal immediately after it’s over. If that motion is seconded, you’ll see it there. Greg L (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Above I listed some other sections that I suggested be closed. The reason to close them is the confusion caused on that page, as made evident by this comment: "There are so many proposals and changes being discussed simultaneously that I no longer can keep track of what is being proposed.".

As to Dicklyon's repeated unsubstantiated claims that somehow I'm preventing discussion to occur, that's just ridiculous. None of 16+ editors who have expressed their opinion in Greg's poll seem inhibited from discussing. Tony just started a discussion based on primary topic. Why can't Dick say whatever he wants to say? This is just another stonewalling tactic, combining accusing change proponents of tendentious editing with trying to manipulate an admin into helping. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And, in a different guideline, Dicklyon edit wars again, as soon as the page is unprotected[3]. I guess that page could also do with protection + poll. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved there at all, and don't plan to get involved, but that edit is the quintessential most common type of status quo stonewalling tactic: Reverting with "discuss first" without discussing. How much of this b.s. must the community endure? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C, if you think WP:BRD is bullshit, you might be on the wrong project. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What? In that essay, if that's what you're referring to, I wrote the problem is BRD (Bold, Revert, Discussion). How could you miss the strikeout, especially given the text that follows, not to mention that name of that section? Did you even read it? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In BRD, YOU make a bold edit, the OTHER EDITOR reverts if they think it's against consensus, and YOU start a discussion if you still think the change is an improvement. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with reverting without discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hummm, at least this time Dicklyon has reverted both the changes by Noetica and the changes by JCScaliger. Now, we just need to get some clear consensus in the talk page, and get this done with..... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, did you read that section? You're interpreting "reverting without discussion" differently from how it's used there. Also, BRD advises to start a discussion and making the bold edit simultaneously. We both agree if neither party wants to discuss, "reverting without discussion" is fine; of course. What's not fine is reverting with edit summary "discuss first" (or something similar), especially when the bold editor already started a discussion on the talk page per BRD, then refusing to engage in substantive discussion about the reverted edit... that's what I mean by "reverting without discussion". In the WP:TITLE case the bold editor (me) started the discussion on the talk page simultaneous to the edit (per BRD), and all the reverters would do, for the last month, is revert, and discuss the supposed "need to discuss". Do you not agree that's a problem?

I mean, if the bold editor started a discussion on the talk page which substantively justifies the bold edit, simultaneous to making the bold edit per BRD, it's highly disruptive to revert without engaging in that discussion, or at least stating a substantive objection to the bold edit in the edit summary. Don't you agree? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a message asking for clarification about what is a contributory copyright violation.

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

Radvo (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WT:AT poll closed

I advanced a motion on how to proceed from this point forward here at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Motion on moving forward from here. Greg L (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• And my motion has been seconded. Greg L (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello Elen. I e-mailed you a couple of weeks ago with a request - are you able to help? Cheers, Number 57 11:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I had to consult a more technical colleague, and it seems it would be very difficult. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Zhand38

Hello, this is the blocked user Zhand38. I can't log-in anymore for some reason nor even talk on my own page. Anyways, I was wondering what I have to do to be unblocked again. I have apologized to the people who were originally trying to help. Um, I don't really know what to say, I feel pretty bad about my rudeness and I don't think there is any luck for me in a while but I just wanted to check. Gwen Gale and DonLammers were the main people who tried to help me, so do you mind hearing their opinions. I will do my best in my will to follow all of the policies and I have many reasons for editing that it will be hard to put it on here, so look at this link. I created this, it took me 10 months to make this, and this is probably what I would put on here. I have found all the websites for references, as I have lacked before when I was unblocked. So the point is, I will not disappoint anyone. I should mention though that what I'm talking about editing the Cincinnati Zoo page.Thanks a bunch. http://cincinnatizooandbotanicalgarden.wikia.com/wiki/Cincinnati_Zoo_and_Botanical_Garden_Wiki 207.67.17.67 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

NLP

Ellen, no one is going to request a sock puppet check as no one is accusing 122.x.x.x of being a sock puppet. I summarised the issues in response to your cease and desist notice, with a request as to which is the right forum to bring up the long term disruption on the article. Todate no admin has entered that discussion and attempted to structure it or provide guidance, and the article has been a mess consuming huge amounts of time over the last few years. If its arbcom, fine but I and others have wasted too much time on this article over the years and put up with the odd abusive off wiki attack. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied at ANI. Let's see if we can focus on the problematics - that thread looked like it was turning into largely an unamicable content dispute. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Elen, I'm sorry for my sarcasm yesterday. I know you mean well, I know the arbs are swamped right now, and I know things are moving faster than everyone can keep up with them. We're just on very different pages as to what happened at FAC, and I hope things will be clearer some day. Or better yet, that things will evolve in such a way that no additional clarity is needed, which would be a win-win for all. In the meantime, FAC has been badly damaged, so I should turn my attention to the repair effort. Again, I'm sorry for aiming so much at you yesterday, when I'm sure your intentions were good. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted - there's been too much stress going round over this. I know it's upset Amalthea a lot as well as yourself and Raul. In other news, as you don't hang out in the admin areas, you may not be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alarbus/Archive. If you think he's using socks again, let me know. Since Alison did run a CU at that point, I can say that if he's a returning user, he's upped sticks, because nobody I can think of comes from where he appears to be now residing, by quite some distance. Although of course there are ways round from a technical perspective, they are usually identifiable by someone who is good with the tools.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Elen-- I'm just now catching up, and realized I need to strike some things I said day before yesterday, which I forgot to do yesterday. You haven't lost my trust, but in the future, you might not come on so strong to an established user, threatening blocks for someone who has been taunted for months, when what has gone on here has been So Very Wrong, with no help coming from the admin corp in dealing with the disruption.

I don't recall ever having run across Amalthea in my editing career (which I thought strange for someone who attained CU status), so I didn't seem to know how to approach him, and it was hard for me to understand why he kept at me long after the rest of us had moved on and made our peace. I suspect there's things I don't know, but I'm unsure how to reach out to him, considering how strangely those conversations went. If you're in touch with him, please let him know that I'm sorry this was all so upsetting-- it looks to me like he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I signed off of futher talking to him when he Just Kept At It after it shoulda been over.

I have no doubt that we're likely dealing with lots of folks who know how to evade CU; the Rlevse/BarkingMoon case makes it clear that folks will defend friends even in the face of overwhelming behavioral evidence, in cases where CU can be fooled. It's a Wiki; what can you do. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As a quick comment. The issues with the Rlevse account are and were complex. This isn't a black and white issue. What happens when people get excited with this kind of wide open online format is that the issues become conflated, and in this situation there was no way to delineate those issues to see what was really going on. I don't think its fair to imply that those who supported Rlevese in some way were "friends", and that was as far as their thinking went. Not opening another discussion, heaven forbid, just a comment.(olive (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Until seeing the drum that Montanabw is beating, I would have agreed. She's clearly implying that it's only Raul and me over at the ArbCom talk page, and clearly ignoring all of the other issues to cast those aspersions at Raul and me. It's very strange how the CCI instigated by Amalthea-- which I happened to stumble upon-- is being blamed on us! Rlevse was her (Montanabw's) friend, and she's casting aspersions our way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No desire to make this personal to anyone. Its hard to impossible to judge motive. Just a general comment.(olive (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

I have to say I've interacted a lot with Montanabw, and always found her to have her head very well screwed on, and her heart in the right place. Having said that, she's been having problems (long-term; as have several others in WP:EQUINE) - with another editor who's probably crying out for an RfC, and she may be a bit burnt out. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that's happening to them-- I helped them all (Equine project) once long ago with another problem editor, but I surmise now the favor won't be returned, and casting aspersions upon some editors with a high profile is all fine and dandy on the Wikipedia. :)

Anyway, EotR, I've now received information about how to proceed with this problem, from a person in a position to provide full and comprehensive answers to my queries regarding such a difficult mess when CU data is stale, but I still have to follow up on one troubling aspect. Win-win would be no recurrence of problems in the realm of featured content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there may have been a minor plague in equine; we had an IP in December (Stallion section) who was a bit challenging, too ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh God, I remember him Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3

Thank you for taking the time to comment at the Rfc...your courteous demeanor was most appreciated.--MONGO 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do understand people's concerns, particularly about the "plea bargaining" aspect. I just wish folks (on all sides) wouldn't turn everything into battlegrounds and conspiracy theories all the time, but I guess that's just the nature of the world.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail Call

Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuits for copyright infringement ("close paraphrase")

Hello, Ms. Elen, I'm interested in the "close paraphrase" issue and it looks like you know something about it.

1. Has the English Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation ever been sued for "close paraphrase" copyright infringement?
2. If so, can you tell me the names of some of the cases? (I'd just like to read for myself what kind of "close paraphrase" violations cause legal trouble in the real world).

Thank you. (I've posted the same questions on the Reference Desk/Humanities page, and may also ask MoonRiddenGirl and Almathea.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The WMF does receive DMCA (takedown) notices from time to time - mostly to do with images I believe. For someone to bother calling a lawyer, the copying element has to be substantial - using a couple of sentences from a newspaper article or a page from a book would fall under fair use in the US anyway. I don't have any details though - you'd have to ask the Foundation.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your answering my questions. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wanted! (Preferably alive...)

Kiefer-Wolfowitz says you may be a ble to help us get a copy of Andrew Alexander's Mutiny on the Meermin (Thesis (Hons. (History))--University of Cape Town). A small group of us is/are (depending on your chosen grammatical structure ;P) attempting to drag The Meermin slave mutiny up to FAC; we'd be extraordinarily grateful if you could help us with this. :D Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat seh

Sorry, we cannot find libraries in United Kingdom that have this item.

The nearest locations with libraries that have the item include:

South Africa

Auntie Elen seh User:NJR ZA might be able to help, or you could search Category:Wikipedians in South Africa. Or if you know anyone with JSTOR access, try here http://www.jstor.org/pss/41056583. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Or you may be able to get a copy of that article from http://www.scielo.org.za/revistas/kronos/iaboutj.htm

which is where it was originally published. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page stalker sez I have JSTOR. I can send you a PDF copy if you email me an address that I can email an attachment to. Cloveapple (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Cloveapple, UR genius. I'll let Pesky email you with her details - no point routing the thing through more points than necessary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Haploidavey is emailing me that 2007 one (that was Alexander's MA thesis, which we've seen the Kronos article – couple of chapters, I think? –of). We're really after the 2003 BA thesis, if anyone can get ahold of it! I'll check the Wikipedians in South Africa out, too. Thanks for the tips and offers. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandal Again

Greetings & thank you for your help the last time Collis Potter Huntington's page was changed to show an incorrect birthday by an anonymous user. Now again, the same change of birthday from October to April, no reason given, has been done by a new registered user. It is really frustrating that this person will not explain why they think this is a good edit - especially when it is not. Thanking you again for your help before and your help now. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left the user a warning message. The first editor to make the change back in 2007 was the sock of a blocked editor, and both the sockmaster and his several socks edited a lot more stuff than just this. I do think this is the same as the IPs, but I'm not convinced it is the same as the original editor. If they persist without explanation, further action can be taken.

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sam and Diane for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam and Diane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam and Diane until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

	NAIRU Straightjacket
	For brief but commendable service as a footsoldier in the reserve army of labour. ;D  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Block explanation

Hi - would you mind providing an explanation of the PMAnderson/JCSalinger blocks? You said the evidence came via email. In the interests of openness, would you consider posting that correspondence? Or if it's somehow too sensitive, perhaps a summary of the allegations/evidence? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got -

• Language similarities. PMA has quite a distinctive style - for instance, he's one of the few people I know who use semicolons in edit summaries - very few editors use them on talkpages even, but PMA and JCS use them in both edit summaries and talkpages. There's use of latin, obscure legal terms, other shared and unusual vocabulary.
• Similarity of content. They both make the same arguments. This by itself wouldn't mean much, it's just another piece.
• Behavioural - they both have a dislike of the same three editors, they both have the same quite strident opinions about for example MOS.
• Timing. The JCS account pretty much stopped editing in 2007, edited occasionally, with all the times corresponding to an occasion when PMA was blocked, and started again on 10 September 2011, which is 10 days after PMA was topic banned.
• I was sent charts from one of the wikitracker utilities (that confirms that they weren't making interleaving edits - it's usually a sign that it's two people, as it's very difficult to edit from two accounts simultaneously and you usually give yourself away quickly). I'm not sure technically how I can post these, but you can get the raw data from http://en.wikichecker.com/user/ The evidence compares edits in 2006 mostly, when both accounts were editing regularly.
• Checkuser information. I can't (obviously) give you the IPs or anything, but there were three static IPs (not mobile IPs that seem to rotate every 2 hours) involved that both parties were editing from. Any one of them would probably have been confirmation, but to have both users using all three in the past 90 days is pretty conclusive.

The whole package is with Arbcom, so other eyes have looked on it. I'm the one who blocked him because I wrote up the topic ban, and I took it on myself to do the investigation. Hope this helps. It wasn't something I would do lightly, but in my opinion, there's no way these are not the same person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Elen. It just seemed to come out of the blue - the evidence is helpful to understand what happened. Dohn joe (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I can understand the concern when there's no WP:SPI with onwiki evidence that people can look at. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Elen, thanks. Would you be willing to explain why the block was 1 year instead of indefinite? thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. My thinking is as follows. It isn't always the case that sockmasters are banned indefinitely (unless they are extremely disruptive) for a first offence. More usually, the socking resets any block or ban to the start, so they have to do the time all over again. In the terms of PMA's topic ban, it said that if he breached the ban he would be blocked for one week for a first offence and one year for a second. Hence one year. I would imagine that a second attempt to breach the block by socking, particularly to breach the topic ban (which I hope he's not stupid enough to try), would result in a sterner penalty.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I also was surprised by this development at WT:CON, but appreciate the availability of this explanation. NewbyG ( talk) 07:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe wanna help with a similarly tough case?

I saw this in the Signpost. I wonder if you'd be willing to this kind of analysis in the BarkingMoon case and more importantly in the case of the recently discovered suspected IP sockpuppets which seems to have ran concurrently with the PumpkinSky account. The latter used web hosting centers etc. and are being discussed on User talk:Geometry guy (for now). Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please implement the consensus wording

Hello, we had this unanimous poll a few days ago to implement a certain wording.

It still has to be implemented, and meanwhile we are getting disruptive attempts to go around that consensus.

There is very clear consensus for the wording in the first link, and I think there has been enough discussion, as shown in the second link. I would like to move to the next step: the tweaking of the consensus wording. Could you please edit the guideline through the protection to implement the change? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Elen of the Roads,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Elen, I served the terms of your two week ban for harassment. Thank you for blocking the trolls who complained about me. While I was away, I created a 12 question survey in Google Docs Forms about Wikipedia and the GNAA, which I intend to distribute off-wiki to Wikipedians including administrators, Category:African_American_Wikipedians, civil rights leaders, media personalities, and possibly government officials, unless the latter is seen as a legal threat. The survey covers issues such as what constitutes a slur, what creates a hostile volunteer environment, whether self-admitted trolls are inherently non-notable per WP:IAR and WP:DENY, whether the respondents would support policy changes to codify such strengthened notability (unless that is seen as canvassing), ethical conduct of administrators regarding such groups, and related topics. I intend to present the results of the survey at Wikimania in Washington D.C. this July. Before I distribute the survey I would like to discuss your expectations of the behavioral norms concerning both distribution of the survey and the survey questions off-wiki. I am amenable to email, IRC, Skype, or telephone. Please let me know if you are willing to discuss this with me, and how and when to reach you. Thank you. Selery (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Selery. Is it OK if I flag this to Arbcom, to get a wider response base. One thing I will say is that I think in terms of editing Wikipedia, it would be helpful to you if you were able to distinguish in your own mind between trolling users and editors who support the existing notability and verifiability policies, even if they result in articles on unpleasant topics. Both of your blocks seem to me to originate with you not being clear to distinguish between them. There are many editors who might prefer privately that an organisation did not exist, but who would reject any suggestion that it not be given 'the oxygen of publicity' by inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Accusing this group of trolling or ethics violations is not helping you to make a case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

He's indeffed. And someone needs to get her talk page achieved. Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

Or even archived. And I was as surprised as anyone when Courcelles told me the evidence he had. They are all coming out of the woodwork it appears. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Working things out on the talk page first

Elen, when you took over on WP:Article titles, you wrote in your edit summary that “I have no dog in this fight except to exhort everyone to work it out on the bloody talkpage FIRST”. We did. There will never be 100 percent agreement. But WP:Consensus doesn’t say that has to be 100% agreement; it only requires that there truly be a consensus. And there is. Both polls clearly indicate a wide segment of our volunteer editors desire simple titles that assume the reader possesses a modicum of preexisting familiarity with the subject matter.

The community supports this version of the WP:AT, which bears this edit summary: 23:56, 23 January 2012‎ JCScaliger (talk | contribs)‎ (40,869 bytes) (Resatore text to Dec 21, before Noetica's continual revert war for a non-consensus text. Boldness requires novel texts and discussion.)

If you are going to take the duties of moderating that page away from Kami, then I think it is time to step up to the plate and take a swing at the ball. If you are waiting until there are no more holdouts who want their way and everyone pronounces that they see nothing wrong with WP:Article titles, then it is going to be a l-o-n-g wait. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.

I personally suggest that you simply unlock the page, restore it to the consensus version, keep it unlocked, and lower the boom on anyone who starts editing against consensus and editwarring. Greg L (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

While Greg has been big on the discussion page this year (more than twice as many posts as anyone else), his main point seems to have been to stamp out the discussion that might move us toward an actual consensus. See [4], [5], and other stuff at that talk page. The most recent major section Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Recognizability - a third option seems to be going OK, so far with no input from him, thankfully. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so quick to personalize things Dick? I didn’t once mention your name here in this thread yet you felt it important to whip up a misleading statistic about edit counts and try to paint a picture that all will be well with your universe if Greg L only stayed away. No wonder you and B2C got into a tit-for-tat and are now embroiled with ArbCom over your behavior.

Now, let’s address a misleading falsehood. The nature of my authoring posts is to go back and tweak them many times, which creates the appearance of making many posts but is actually tweaks (edits) to existing posts. For instance, my above post on this thread (dated 01:02, 12 February) comprised four separate edits. The fact of the matter is you and I have 58 and 61 distinct dated posts on WT:AT respectively. We all know who beats us in total number of posts on WT:AT; that’s right: B2C, who has 75 posts. Moreover, I have a strong hunch that because of all the back & forth you engaged in with B2C, the aggregate word-count of your posts exceeds mine.

And a little point that is actually more germane: It matters what one writes and whether it is grounded in Wikipedia’s principles. I’m rather proud that SMcCandlish (an editor with ten posts on WT:AT) gave me this Barnstar Point for “remarkably pithy commentary” on WT:AT. (No, that’s not an invitation for you go go make personal attacks on him, now).

As for your allegation that I am trying to “stamp out” discussion, that is just beyond absurd. You undermine your position when you resort to such tactics. Yours is the tired refrain of the tendentious editor who refuses to agree that a consensus exists on a talk page when one isn’t getting his way. It happens all the time on Wikipedia so at least it’s not a new phenomenon we’re dealing with.

As for your two linked diffs, (were those supposed to somehow impeach me in hopes no one would read them??) I encourage everyone to read them, as they are A) true, and B) exceedingly germane. There was a 17:0 poll that enjoyed wide participation by a community that had grown sick and tired with you and B2C fighting each other like alley cats. And your latest poll where you attempted to “slice” the issue differently merely reinforced the first poll.

Finally, I could hardly give a rip what the actual wording is. I am intent on ensuring that a bedrock principle of Wikipedia that is part of The Five Pillars: respecting consensus is abided by. I don’t like it when I see that principle being undermined by a small cabal that creates such a ruckus, the rest of the wikipedian community just walks away and leaves disfunction to cascade and feed on itself until ArbCom has to step in. Amazing.

To you Elen, I don’t understand why you don’t either honor the consensus or openly opine that you think one isn’t sufficient established. Why the inaction? Doing as you are doing merely rewards tendentiousness and wikilawyering by holdouts. Greg L (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's the problem

From what I can see, this disagreement is over more than a form of words. There's something underlying it, otherwise it wouldn't have gone on for so long.

You, Greg, offered a very worthy poll - do you want Frosties or cornflakes. A number of people voted for Frosties, no-one voted for cornflakes, but immediately afterwards a number of people who hadn't voted said they wanted to go to Starbucks for breakfast. (Look at what happened immediately after the poll, when Greg asked for seconders for a motion to close and make the change). That's not stonewalling, that's two completely different sets of aims. I can impose Frosties while you're all at the breakfast table, but if half of you will sneak out and spend your lunch money in Starbucks, that's not smiling faces all round.

It's also been compounded because one of the major contributors turned out to be a sock of a topic banned editor, making his edits unacceptable to some (hence the strikeouts) and taken up by others (which is quite wikilegal I hasten to add, and not a problem). So I had to let the dust settle from that.

It strikes me that there is some structural or systemic problem underlying this, but I can't put my finger on what it is. Lots of people have raised concerns about searches, but if you search in Google for a redirect title, it brings up the lede of the article (try it yourself by searching for "Poll tax"). At the RfAR on capitalisation, it's been pointed out that putting all the variants of the name in the first sentence of the lede im.proves searchability (try it yourself by googling "capitation tax"). I'm having a hard time understanding why the difference between the two forms of wording is so significant. Particularly since, as soon as there is disagreement on which name is more recognizable, it surely should be a rule that the other name goes in the first sentence, or even becomes a redirect.

I am reluctant to unlock, make the change, and then lock again to stop the other crew reverting, which I'm concerned that they will do. I'm going to post on the talkpage, and ask a question of all parties but particularly those that did not vote in GregL's poll. Hopefully that will allow me to unlock the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You've managed to capture the Faustian nature of this situation very well. Why would I opt for any kind of cereal for breakfast when a breakfast burrito is a much better choice. When we as a community fail into these Faustian traps, those who chose not to play along are accused of not respecting consensus. Well in my view consensus of a few on something thats in the end harmful to the community--Frosties have too much sugar and a breakfast burrito is a much more balanced meal--is not good consensus. It is also interesting to note, that those editors who prefer the Faustian approach to get their pet little issues resolved are actually reluctant to participate in wider, more holistic approaches to resolving important community issues. Whenever a discussion of the balanced nature of a Breakfast burrito meal versus a Frosties meal comes up, those that want frosties won't even play because their real case is either limited or non-existant. I think you are doing exactly the right thing in helping to keep us focused on the bigger issues--what's an appropriately balanced meal for breakfast (and what's good WP:AT policy). Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe Mike Cline definitely doesn't care about which of the two wordings are used, and wants a complete rewrite (he has made several specific proposals like that). Dicklyon, Tony and Noetica might sincerely favor a complete rewrite too - though none of them has made any specific proposals like that. But they also definitely favor the May 2011 wording over the Kotniski wording, because their behavior consistently shows a strong preference for what we have traditionally called "more disambiguation than necessary" in titles (see the evidence I presented in the ARBCOM case, which I see I have to reduce in size... ugh). I really don't think there is more to it than that. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ACMEWikiNet

I believe this user might be engaging in some sockpuppetry. Seems like two IPs edited posts about him (on WP:TVS) and made edits similar to the ones he was making (the reverts to TV station pages) on the 2nd and 11th, with the WP:TVS edit on the 12th (all in February). The IPs are 24.3.64.94 and 76.125.240.79 which are both licensed to Comcast and geolocate back to Greensburg, Pennsylvania. I think a checkuser might be in order to flush out any further IPs sockpuppets. I will leave it up to you to determine what to do though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and you might want to consider archiving your talk page, as editing it is sometimes very slow. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This was posted just moments ago by ACMEWikiNet:

Elen of Roads and Neutralhomer, FYI those two IPs in my edits to the noticeboard I forgot to log back in. Those two IPs are through my landlord's internet provider. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't believe that statement. I haven't seen any landlords that provide internet services to their renters. Water and Sewer, maybe, but internet, I don't think so. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, landlords frequently provide internet to students as part of the rent. Can't see why it would be much different in other places. I'll leave him a note reminding him that he's blocked, not the account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here in the US (where I live) it is mostly water and sewer and if the town has it's own trash collection service, they sometimes throw that in. I have lived in alot of places, but I have never heard of any landlord having internet as a perk. I have heard of phone, electric, or cable being a perk (those being rare to begin with), but never internet. Just not something we have here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here, we now frequently get broadband bundled with cable or the phone, so it's easy for a landlord to just have the package and recharge the tenant. Both my student daughters have had broadband on that basis while at uni. I'll AGF with him for today - after all he's blocked 24 hours (the other thing that makes me think he's a student is he's taken it like being kicked from a chatroom, rather than like a personal affront, so I'm guessing he may be a gamer). If he comes back tomorrow night with a better understanding of consensus, we've all won. If he socks with IPs, we know what will happen.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, cable companies bundle phone, internet and cable together (costs about $149.99 US or 95.17 GBP, at current rate of exchange), but to do that for each renter would be HUGE. Colleges have more money to play with, which is why they can offer their own internet service or even cable service (mostly for the big colleges). The smaller colleges and universities here in the US get cable and internet at a discounted rate from the local cable company.

I will leave this in your hands for the next 24. Keep an eye on any number of US television stations, he seems to hit them regardless of location. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wi-fi, my dear Watson. Wi-fi. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that, but those wouldn't change IP addresses. The good thing about Comcast is you have your IP address for a long time. I have been with the same one (even daily modem reboots) for almost a year. Not sure why they do that, but it is nice. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Born2cycle

Elen, I hate to pester you again, but could you review the exchange between B2C and me at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Going_forward_-_note_from_the_admin_who_has_the_page_locked before unlocking WP:TITLE? Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Yet another example of User:Born2cycle/Status_quo_stonewalling#Finding excuses to ignore discussion results. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• How about I propose that both of you are topic banned from Article Titles? No? Then both of you need to shut up. The encyclopaedia will work equally well with either version, what it won't work with is an edit war on a policy page. That outcome is infinitely worse than retaining the policy with a version of words which might perhaps be very slightly improved on. As I said above, I have no idea why you two (and a couple of other editors) have marked your territory here, and need to defend it so obsessively, but it has nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia.

I have unlocked the page to registered editors. The agreed wording change may be made - hopefully it will make some difference to article creators in some way intended by those who have spent such a very long time arguing about it. I will regard anyone who reverts it now to be edit warring, so be warned.

Other changes must be discussed - or the page will just end up locked again.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're serious, then yes, I'd be willing to stay off WP:TITLE and its talk page altogether if you'd keep B2C off there, too. Dicklyon (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: "The encyclopaedia will work equally well with either version". Elen, sorry, but I have to disagree with you and agree with consensus that there is a significant difference between the two wordings, and the encyclopedia will not work as well with the May 2011 wording as it will with the Kotniski wording. That's why this is so important.

In particular, the May 2011 wording has been used[6], and can continue to be used, as a basis for IDHT disruptive editing that involves arguing that titles need to be recognizable to people unfamiliar with the topic, despite it being made abundantly clear, repeatedly, that that is not a goal endorsed by consensus.

I understand and appreciate the desire to make "generic sounding" titles more descriptive, but I have not seen a proposal on how to even distinguish such titles from other ones, much less how to actually do this in a way that does not create even more consternation and disagreement in the area of titles. I believe it's just not practical, and this is the main reason why WP editors have long ago agreed, in practice and in policy, to make titles no more precise than necessary to disambiguate from other uses in WP. That has been a dominating guiding principle in article naming since before I came to WP, for very good reasons, and that's what Dicklyon, Noetica and Tony seek to undermine, whether they realize it or not. The Colombiana discussion, where Dicklyon, Noetica and Tony are the only ones who oppose, exemplifies the problem (but it's far from the only example, just a particularly good one).

If you want to decrease hangwringing about titles, and increase productivity on WP, with all due respect I suggest you give the difference in meaning of the two wordings in question, and especially the associated practical ramifications in RM discussions and titling decisions, a bit more thought. Without an appreciation for the difference, I don't see how one can understand why we care so much about it, why Kotniski left over it, etc. Simply topic banning me and Dicklyon might seem reasonable to someone who does not have this understanding and appreciation, but it would be merely addressing one or two symptoms of the underlying problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Born, but it is totally unimportant. It doesn't matter what you call the article - particularly if there is a multiple choice - as long as there are redirects and the lede contains the alternates. The encyclopaedia would function just as well if all the articles had sequential ids instead of titles, and article 123456 started "The English Channel, or La Manche....." The change is completely irrelevant, because implicit in the notion of 'recognizable' is 'has encountered this idea before'. Someone who knows sod all about vegetables or cooking would have no reference frame to work out whether Cavalo Nero is an Italian film star or a type of horse. In the old version you got a title recognizable to the article creator, in the new version you get a title recognizable to the article creator.

I really think it would be helpful if both you and Dicklyon could step down a bit (i'm not saying stop necessarily, just step back), and let others hold a different type of discussion that sounds less like two tups headbanging. I think it likely that Article Titles is going to end up with some kind of discretionary sanctions, so you might as well start practising now.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been relatively inactive for the last few weeks, Elen. I just realized yesterday I had to get my evidence in at the ARBCOM case. Anyway, on the larger question about titles in general I agree that ultimately doesn't matter. But that's not the issue here. The fact is we don't use arbitrary strings for our articles, and so we have to decide one way or another what the title should be for each article. So how we go about doing that, in terms of how straightforward vs. contentious that title selection process is, does matter. That's what it is at issue here, not whether titles ultimately matter. in fact, the whole point of no more precise than necessary to disambiguate from others uses in WP (and the closely related - recognizable to those familiar with the topic) is precisely to make the process more straightforward and less contentious. So unless you're saying it doesn't matter how contentious the process is, it does matter. No? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the process of agreeing the wording did not need to be as contentious as it was. Your version is probably slightly better. It's not 40Mb of bitter argument better. I can understand hostility between editors from the various states of the former Yugoslavia - these guys may well have battlefield history in their own families. But the absolute 'no quarter' attitude here when you lot get going baffles me. I think if everyone started from a position of 'it doesn't really matter, but does anyone agree...' then maybe things would be more collegial and less like trying to herd siamese fighting fish. Maybe its a forlorn hope. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not forlorn hope because what you describe is the norm and this situation is a big exception.

I've been involved in many disagreements in the past, including at WP:AT, and I've been pretty consistent with following basically what you suggest. That is, the page has evolved, often with my involvement, per normal WP processes of BRD, building consensus, etc. This is because when we disagree, we are willing to discuss it, pretty good about coming to understanding the other's view, etc.

What happened in this case is that those opposing the change refused to provide any substantive reasons for opposing because underlying their position is a basis clearly not supported by consensus. So no discussion was possible, except in trying to get them to discuss, and discuss why they weren't discussing, and showing over and over that everyone else supported the change. Frankly, it didn't help that no admin was willing to step in and seriously evaluate what was going on, until you finally did almost two months after the whole thing started.

So I agree in general that the "titles don't really matter much" perspective is helpful, if not crucial, but as long as involved parties feel titles matter at least a little (and I suggest it's unreasonable to presume that will change), substantive discussion is required to work out differences. That's what didn't happen here, that was the root problem, and that it was tolerated for as long as it was is probably the main issue to address. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your post has been tagged as humor

See discussion on User talk:Jehochman. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied to him. Thanks for the heads up. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting WP:V

Very kind of you. Also, please could you check back in one week and restore the semi-protection? Experience shows us it's pretty important. Thanks again!—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do - remind me if I forget. I'm very much of the opinion that edit warring on a policy page is much worse than the page having slightly the wrong version, because it undermines the whole idea that policies are fixed in any way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again. May the angels smile upon us. Please note NewbyG has offered to withdraw from talk and project pages, having a party elsewhere, just remembered I have a dentist appointment. Bliss! IIRC, I edited the project page once. Cheers all, and best of luck, anyone care to join me, the dentist has this luxurious chair, darkened room, mood music and a droll little gas. Do not wake /em till dinner-time. (smileyface) NewbyG ( talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Think I'll take a raincheck :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The page was protected because of SMarshall's continued long-term edit-warring at that page, and it's kinda weird that he is thanking you for protecting it. Hmm. Can any of you show me a case where a policy page can be essentially hijacked with a pointy "under discussion" tag for seven months into infinity? It's funny, you know, because I can't find one other "under discussion" tag live on any other policy page at all. Doc talk 05:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sir Duke (Stevie Wonder song) /You can feel it all over; happens all the time. NewbyG ( talk) 11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

May you have a day full of WikiLove

	Happy Valentine's Day
	All the best for one of Wikipedia's best! (Feel free to send this to your other Valentines) Smallbones (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but then people would talk :):) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not necessary?

I state that it IS necessary to tag the userpages of users who have been community banned [7]. For one thing, how else are people to know they are banned after this all quiets down, especially in the event she returns much later with sockpuppets (and this all starts anew) or continues her harrassment elsewhere? For another, I've encountered these attempts to hide people's banned status before and it results in confusion and very often redundant ban discussions, such as in the case of our friend Kwork. I cannot see why anyone would want to be nice to someone who has relentlessly harrassed someone else here for years, but if you insist on leaving up their list of contributions then please at least leave the banned tag and the link to the discussion so people can be informed. That's what the tag is for. Night Ranger (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone found the good compromise there. Best wishes. Night Ranger (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Good compromise - should have thought of it myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mbz1's userpage and talk are on my watchlist from a long time ago, and I followed the edits through to here. Typically, I would want the whole user page replaced. I think it's important for there to be all or nothing; but honestly, I'm a sucker for a nice gallery, and Mbz1's pictures are stunning. In this case alone, I would prefer we keep the content. You guys sorted this out, but I figured I'd weigh in anyway. Happy editing, AGK [•] 00:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I like to remember that people aren't only the sum of their screwups on this website :) And thanks for chipping in below - I would have asked you to if you hadn't done it already. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Need Some Help with a Problematic Range

Could you take a look at this ANI thread about it, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just lighting this up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't think there's much I can do beyond what's on ANI. A rangeblock expert I am not, and if Harry Mitchell tells me that the collateral is too high, I have to believe him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I just don't know what to do with that range. Nothing he has edited is constructive, everything is vandalism (I don't count a couple good edits between the multitude of bad ones), and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to stop this guy because a couple people might have to get an account. I am at a loss. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, since no one seems interested in stopping that vandal (with two blocked and locked named accounts and numerous IP accounts, not to mention an entire range to play with), I am not going to waste my time fighting that vandal. You can mark the above noted ANI thread as "withdrawn". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While I'm here, doing the TPS thing. NH, we really do take a severe view of drive-by vandalism, but WilliamH is correct that there is too much collateral to apply a full range-block. We could block sub-ranges, but the IP is evidently dynamic so we'd be fixing about a tenth of the problem. If it helps, I usually find that completely ignoring a troll makes them go away; even if you have to find another user on IRC to revert his activities, keeping your username off his radar should see him grow bored. Of course, if things get nastier or chronic, we can re-visit, and in the event of continued address re-assignments, any administrator will block new vandalism-only IPs by request. Best, AGK [•] 00:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

More protection needed

You recently semi-protected this user talk page as it is under attack. Please also semi-protect this user template that is transcluded into the user's talk as it was recently misused by this user (who might need a block). The semi protection expires very soon—extending it before more attacks occur might provide discouragement. All this is just a suggestion, and I won't need an explanation if you don't feel like doing it (and I don't need talkback if any reply given). Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Trollolol

Thanks!

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you:) Page semi-protected to 25th, template semi-protected indefinitely as I can see no reason why anyone else should need to edit it anyway.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As payback I went and improved your whole sockpuppet template list thingy (like I improved the WP:MLT template stuff before) Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_namespace/Sockpuppets

I have noticed that the templates don't actually seem to be used much/properly/at all, sometimes even by apparently experienced checkusers, it's interesting, I posted some comments here:

User talk:Amalthea#Thanks.21

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Useful list - I'm hopeless at sock tagging - drive the SPI clerks bonkers - but fortunately a couple of gnomes seem to follow me round and tag everything up.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)