User talk:Elen of the Roads/2012 (1)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost[edit]

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

The Signpost: 02 January 2012[edit]

thanks[edit]

hi i want to thank you for your comment at [1]. it was one of the only level headed ones there. thanks. Bouket (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block concerns[edit]

Hi,

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

In the case of an ANI discussion it is more usual to copy over statements from a blocked editor, as I note has been done. It is slightly different to an RFAR, where the editor is expected to present evidence. Also Dolovis said in the unblock appeal that he wouldn't have time to contribute to the discussion. It's a bit awkward now also because JGreb has refused the block appeal. That said, if Dolovis were to appeal because he want's to input to the discussion, I would look at it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [chat] 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 DRV[edit]

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

Number of things. I suspect the answer would be that DRV isn't the place to discuss that. Also, Wikipedia's own licensing requires that the history be kept where an article is redirected, so BD2412's action was technically correct. Also, George's DRV was so badly formed that if you want to argue that the articles should be deleted, you'd probably do better starting again.
However, if you still want to uncollapse it, you have my blessing. I only did it to avoid taking up any more time from any one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your permission. I will reopen the DRV. WP:Copying within Wikipedia requires that the history be kept if content is copied, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that a merger has been done. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Badly formed"? How, aside from that fact that I might have used the DRV as a page protection or something like that? --George Ho (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selery[edit]

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

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

Diacritic topic-ban nightmare[edit]

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

Wikid77, the problem is that Dolovis seems to regard diacritics as personally offensive, or the work of the Devil or something, and has not accepted that his actual editing behaviour is seen as problematic. I have noted that all very fast moving editors seem to have a tendency to brush off all criticism, and to be reluctant to make alterations in their behaviour that would slow them down, but coupled with Dolovis's abhorrence of diacritics, this makes for a bad prospect. Also both he and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COMMONNAME. 'Spelt should be used instead of 'Farro', because it has a common name in English even though it's mostly grown in Italy. Tomas Tankendjinn isn't Tǒmás Tânkeņdjinn's common name in English, it's just his proper name with the diacritics stripped out by a lazy typesetter.
  • Thank you for clarifying. I can appreciate the concept of the "lazy typesetter" but that needs to be WP:V verified with WP:RS sources, when a majority of sources spell the name with the 26-letter English alphabet. That is why the 18th U.S. President was called "Ulysses S. Grant" even though "S." is not part of his birthname ("Hiram Ulysses Grant"), but somewhere people added the "S." and even fewer Americans would know if asked, "Who is Hiram U. Grant?" (perhaps Hugh Grant?). Now I could speculate the extra "S." came from a common typo as "Ulysse.s. Grant" but instead, the WP:COMMONNAME is used, and sources must verify the "S." as being a typo which is too rare for the title. If you read other writings by Dolovis, he uses similar reasoning and asks people to cite sources to defend use of the rare spellings. So, that is the other view. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks[edit]

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

Last sock standing[edit]

Snön lyser vit på taken
Endast Darwinbish är vaken!
Viktor Rydberg, "The tomte" (1881)
little ankle biter 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Psychofish does poetry. Who knew? But why did Google translate think it was Croatian. If we knew that, I feel we may be close to mastering one of the mysteries of the universe. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:PassaMethod[edit]

Hi, Elen of the Roads. I know that users can be blocked if their editing is damaging the encyclopedia. You did so as recently as with User:George Ho. Well, User:PassaMethod is constantly adding poorly-sourced/unsourced material, and original research or synthesis to Wikipedia articles. I've told others about this, such as User:Boing! said Zebedee, but they seem to believe that there's nothing we can do about this user other than reverting him and warning him when he messes up. I disagree. Like in George Ho's case, when an editor almost always messes up, they need to be stopped. PassaMethod almost always messes up, and I don't like any of his editing. See these discussions or topics for why.[2][3][4][5] He is a horrible, horrible editor, often including original research or outright falsehoods (as witnessed at the Virginity article where he was reverted [6]) or misrepresentation of sources. In addition to the examples Boing! said Zebedee recently dealt with -- at Category:Erotic fiction[7] and Elvis Presley[8][9][10] -- other examples include this edit which was reverted to the Child sexual abuse article,[11] this edit which was reverted to the Human article[12] (which was also discussed[13]), and the discussion of synthesis regarding his edits to the Pedophilia article.[14] There are a lot more, some of which are documented on his talk page. And look at these edits[15][16] from just a few days ago.

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

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

If you don't know already, I've also commented about him at User talk:Jimbo Wales. 50.19.24.180 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to have too much time to look today (have to get my student offspring back to their establishments of learning), but will take a look as soon as I can. I do believe that one of the roles of administrators is to tackle (or at least highlight) disruption, so if he is problematic, I would take it further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note this is an IP evading a block via a proxy and has been doing so for weeks while whack-a-mole is being played. It's now rangeblocked. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for heads up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

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

The Signpost: 09 January 2012[edit]

Suggestion needed[edit]

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

User JohnC[edit]

This effusion [17] follows your warning to the user by less than a week [18]. User can't control his predilection to violate WP:BLP. Also otherwise insulting, with apparent issues regarding Jews, as here [19] and here [20]. Thanks, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, I've reverted the postings at Kosher foods as offensive. The BLP violations are perhaps the most notable examples of a long term tendency toward soapboxing, to put it kindly. I contacted you because of your previous involvement with the user, but I'm thinking of re-submitting a report to an appropriate page. Thank you again, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, RL intervened - not been around for the past few hours after I removed what was a clear BLP violation. I agree with your reversions - I note a few previous problem edits as well. Seems Scott Mac knocked him on the head --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That happens--real life will do that. Thanks again, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion[edit]

Hi. Sorry to trouble you. If you get a chance, could you look at the diffs around this unfortunate accident: [21] and see if you think anything needs RevDel or anything. I think I'm probably being too sensitive, but a second opinion from a wiser head never hurts. Thanks. Begoon talk 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently started article that may require ArbCom tags[edit]

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

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

Mo ainm[edit]

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

CLEANSTART doesn't propose any remedies for that situation though. All it does is advise that if you go back to your old haunts you will be recognised. I'm not convinced this was a true CLEANSTART, as the user did it for confidentiality reasons - however it is always true that if you have a recognisable editing style and edit around those who knew you, they will recognise you. Given that there are no sanctions in the guidance, and other guidance does recognise the right to abandon an account for security or confidentiality concerns, I don't think there's any action an admin would take here. As with SonofSetanta, looking at editing from this account should be enough to identify whether there is a problem or not. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last thing controversial topic areas need are a bunch of fake clean starts from accounts. I suspect if the question was put to the community, they'd agree with me. Perhaps you should just topicban both of them? Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, after further review. I disagree. WP:SOCK, a policy page, states "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic," and has since at least before a major rewrite("and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. That is, you should not turn up on a page User:A used to edit to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, while denying any connection to User:A, particularly if the edits are contentious."). WP:CLEANSTART states "The principle is that clean start is not a license to resume editing in areas the community might need scrutiny or where scrutiny has happened in the past. It is intended for users who wish to move on to new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct." There is no clean-start here, there is an attempt to evade detection. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the value in quoting a three year old version of that page. I can only go on what it says today. What do you want to happen. Mo ainm isn't going to acknowledge his previous account and SonofSetanta says he doesn't have one? I'm not going to conduct an archaeological expedition, and if you ask Mo for his previous account you'll run into the outing issue. I'll block the bloody lot of them if they don't edit constructively or go edit a different article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Look, nobody is going to block him for who he was. If his editing is bad, there are standard procedures to follow. Wikipedia:Request for comment/Mo ainm for example. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Underpants of Doom, before you post any further please make a statement regarding any previous accounts you have edited with, a statement regarding your motivation in this affair, and a statement regarding your understanding of (WP:SOCK,WP:MEAT,WP:FRESHSTART). Your familiarity with WikiLanguage and WikiPolicy belies your newly registered account status. Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the biter bit. Yes, as his one and only act was to create an account and post here, I have blocked the account. If he has an honest explanation, I'll eat my hat apologise profusely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Elen, I came to ask about that. I see you blocked as a sock, yet didn't checkuser (and, indeed, I was unwilling to proceed with the SPI at all unless some actual justification for a checkuser was put forward). Do you know who that is supposed to be and saw a clear tell? You might want to comment on the SPI if so, for the record. — Coren (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see socks coming out of the woodwork to throw mud at me in the hope some will stick, have a sneaking suspicion I know who it is but a little shorter than their usual comments, I would love to see a diff of any edit I made that is blockable I have made over 7000 edits here to over 3000 unique pages, if an editor breaches our policies it is not my fault I don't sit there and make them hit the edit button. Finally thanks Elen for the clear head today you have done good work. Mo ainm~Talk 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. SonofSetanta (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to bite, just very suspicious about editors who are vociferous on talk pages of contentious topics. Wikipedia doesn't work unless SOCKers discover that registering a new account to avoid scrutiny doesn't help their cause. I've responded to UoD's reasoning on their talk page where they attempted to respond to my request. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redacting statements[edit]

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

There isn't an outing issue over saying SonofSetanta is the Thunderer, it's just a bit pointless. If it is him, he's not editing with both accounts, and just saying 'that's not me' isn't a blockable offense. Everyone has said it, it's better to just let it drop now, and focus on people's current edits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing it up between here and below.Murry1975 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

What I particularly didn't want you to do was get in an edit war with Hackney, because admins were getting twitchy and blocks would have resulted. Hackney redacted an alleged previous username that had been abandoned because of concerns about real life identification. This is a valid reason to start a fresh account, and other editors shouldn't try to tie the two accounts together onwiki. As you saw in the archive discussion you were pointed to, there is a more confidential record that ties the two accounts together. In the case of calling you the Thunderer, I'm sure it's very annoying, especially if you aren't him. But even if you are, it's of limited impact. CLEANSTART doesn't actually say you will be blocked if you go back to editing in old areas, it says someone is bound to recognise you and put two and two together. Which is just common sense, particularly if you have a recognizable editing style.
In general, editors should not modify other editors' comments. What Hackney did was OK, but only because of the outing concern - if some of the edits needed to be revision deleted, then the sooner they are removed from visibility, the easier the task is for the oversighter, and it is always considered better to err on the side of caution. You shouldn't remove references to The Thunderer because, although I'm sure it is very annoying, there's no risk of identifying (or mis-identifying) you in real life. Does this help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that does help. It clarifies where I stand. You're also correct when you say it's very annoying. How can I prevent it from happening again? (I do recognise you've mentioned it but you haven't warned the participants - just me). I'm very concerned about fair play because from where I'm sitting it looks as if I'm doing my best to avoid arguments and insults but I'm getting them anyway.SonofSetanta (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They now know they've been asked to stop. They don't need notices on their talkpages. You can archive or delete the one on yours as you see fit. If anyone starts up again now, admin action can be taken, because it's disruptive to keep doing something after you've been asked to stop. If you keep on with constructive editing - which you have done at the talkpage through the last few days - you should find people more supportive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me. Only one thing I would like to say: my editing has always been constructive. I am in this position because I made a simple error which certain editors seem to have relished as an opportunity to stop me editing the UDR page. The complaint against me is spurious but rather than repeat the mistake I made when I first joined (which is being used against me) I have stayed focused and simply asked for advice and waited until I got it. I am exceptionally grateful to you and others for helping me and I assure you that if you read my track record you will see that this is not a normal situation for me. All I do is edit articles and join in freely with others. I've been discussing matters on the UDR talk page because that's what I'm here to do. I don't want to be arguing with other people - I find it far too stressful. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't intending to impugn your previous editing, it's just that I'd only looked back as far as Jan 9. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you happy now that I'm not a problematic editor? SonofSetanta (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on hearing this arbitration request[edit]

Greetings Elen of the Roads! As per [22], I would like to ask you to recuse from this matter because:

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

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

You appear to have no grounds for this request. My statement "a few of those lately" refers to compromised accounts, not essays - we seem recently to have had a number of old accounts rise from the dead at the hands of a hacker. And just because in 2009 I opined that something was an essay, and therefore the essay rules applied, does not disqualify me from saying that your arbitration request is outside the remit of the committee - which it is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I now realize my mistake was truly incomptent out of my typical manner of Wikipedia editing. Just one comment - you keep making references that I'm not a sockpuppet or a hacked account - I appreciate your protectiveness and sympathy, if you will, because sometimes all Wikipedia editors have one of those moments when we're like "Oh, shoot! What have a done. That was such a mistake". And that's how I feel with the entirety of this arbitration case. As I read further into the depths of the Wikipedia policy and procedures governing the ArbCom, I realized that this matter is indeed totally out of the scope of the ArbCom and I would like to omit and fully repeal my request. Thanks for your patience, Whenaxis talk contribs 22:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your sympathetic words that made me realize that I had absolutely no case at all for the Arbitration Committee and made me realize my recently bizarre editing habits. I truly and honestly appreciate what you've done, no matter how minor you think it seems. Whenaxis talk contribs 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm touched. I have to admit your request looked a little off the wall, and one's first instinct is to check for a new account, sock etc, but I figure you just disagreed with the funnies on the project. Not everyone does agree with them, but they tend to be minority voices. A lot of the humorous essays are from the early days of the project, so it may be that the culture is gradually changing. It genuinely is not something that Arbcom could even think of looking at. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case has been removed, so you might not have seen my comments. If you have a concern with a particular page, then WP:MFD is an option. Sometimes 'humour' does conceal personal attack or other unsuitable comment, and some humorous comments do overstep lines, and it is not unreasonable to say so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you once again :) All the best, Whenaxis talk contribs 01:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for a April Fools Day Joke[edit]

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

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

ArbCom issue[edit]

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

Tell me what you are trying to do, and I'll tell you what process you might need to undertake. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise for the lateness of this reply. I have had a little difficulty. Notwithstanding that I would be very grateful if you could contact me by e-mail (link on my profile). I wish to speak to you confidentially to seek advice. When you see what I have to say you will realise why I don't want to make it public. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to email me - I have it enabled. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reply from you yet Ellen. To me that indicates you have been given food for thought. Am I right? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Since you're a drafting Arbitrator in that case[edit]

I'm not sure what prevents you from putting up a FOF that Δ is being harassed. [23] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:209.56.73.2[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 16 January 2012[edit]

Discussions - other Wikis[edit]

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

Obviously WP:CANVASS applies, but outside of that, if it would be of interest to users in a sister project or might impact them in some way, I can't see why not. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy[edit]

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

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

Question[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Advice?[edit]

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

I rather like that[edit]

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

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

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

LOL. My youngest daughter is an art student. She says stuff like that happens sometimes. "Serendipity" is I believe the posh word for it. As for the close, there did seem to be almost a suggestion from some quarters that if a user improved their editing without going through some kind of Damascus road experience, it was somehow invalid. All we can see are the edits. While I agree that someone who alters their behaviour without really understanding what the problem was is probably not going to avoid problems in the future, we have very little deeper knowledge of most editors, and so WP:AGF really rather requires us to take the change in editing practice at face value - ie assume that it represents a desire to edit less problematically, unless evidence appears to the contrary.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the second half of your observation reflects a widely shared sentiment and that argues against pursuing an RFC/U. I once had to work with a head salesman who behaved like B2C and once accidentally got into a business relationship with someone like B2C. The arguing styles of that business partner (catch me if you can, and pay no attention to my previous excuses) are uncannily similar to B2C. So I think I have earned the gray whiskers in my beard (when I let it grow out, anyway) when it comes to this type of personality. I just don’t sense that B2C is at all like PMAnderson, whom I really rather like when he isn’t hopping atop tavern bars and insisting that only his songs be played on the jukebox.

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

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

You should have tried discussing anything with Gavin.collins. But then again, I have recently been working with George Ho. George at one point appeared a hopeless case - he was frequently correct in his view on both notability and copyright, but his interaction skills were so problematic he ended up indefinitely blocked. However, these have (hopefully) been overcome. George may possibly never understand exactly why he sometimes generates heated responses, but we have worked out a strategy that largely gets over the problem. And even Gavin edits very successfully at Commons and Wikisource. So it is possible to 'edit round' the kind of communication issues that Born2cycle presents, without him needing a personality change. And I'm an optimist.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the tendentious editing thing, you are right. We throw the whole lot into a bucket marked 'civility', but that only allows us to deal effectively with users who call each other nig-nogs or something equally awful. Users who don't cuss, don't use racist abuse etc, but who are absolutely impossible to edit with (there is a blast from the past that I am thinking of here, not anyone in current discussion), take a hell of a long time to deal with. SandyGeorgia says we need a policy on 'collegial' editing, although I'm not sure that word means much in most places. But we do need a way of dealing with the kind of person who in real life you might know or work with, who is ok to exchange a few words in the corridor or the car park, but if a group of you are in discussion in the canteen and he heaves into sight, everyone suddenly has an appointment with their orthodontist. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that the RFC/U will serve as a paradigm for how we handle this sort of thing from hereon. I don’t pretend to have the answers; all I’m doing now is collecting raw, unorganized evidence and soliciting help to strategize on how to proceed. My sandbox for the RFC/U is User:Greg L/sandbox. I think I’ll start a section on “lessons learned”. SarekOfVulcan pointed out that the sandbox stated that the planned outcome was a perma-ban. So I made that open ended and to be discussed. That will be one of the lessons learned as I endeavor to fix what’s broken. BTW, I find B2C’s first sentence of his 23:55 post, below, to be illuminating. Greg L (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would just watch the neutrality of the language in a couple of places, and avoid ascribing intent (eg lying) where what you have is just edits (eg contradictory statements). Just let people draw their own conclusion as to motivation. Itgoes over better that way in my experience. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that it's not a good idea to judge people based on on-line behavior by the same standards we use in the real world. Things get out of hand much easier on-line because of the inherent physical disconnect. Therefore what might appear to be a need for a very challenging "change in heart, philosophy or mental state", might actually be much less than that. I think that's one reason AGF is so critical and effective.

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

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

I would have said that's true - online we know only what people choose to tell us, and we mostly have to take that on trust. We have none of the other cues and clues that we have in real life. And equally, we have very little to soften the typed word - no downcast face, soft voice, tight hand gestures, to tell us that someone is on the verge of tears, no bright grin and sparkling eyes to confirm that they are being cheekily humorous. I believe it is possible (a) for someone not to realise how they come across and (b) for them to adopt a strategy to avoid coming across like that once they do realise. As to the file, it is a bit of a "because I said so" argument, but it's what the community decided - if you have a beef with someone, the best thing in the initial stages is to have it out on their talkpage ("Darling, whenever you say that, I feel so downhearted...."), and if that doesn't work, and it's not a situation where you can just forget it, then the community view is that getting the opinions of others either formally or informally is the way to go. Keeping a list of perceived wrongs in userspace is I think viewed as a little creepy.
I think you have picked up on the problem though, and have the right idea as to the solution. It's fine to ask for an explanation, and it's fine to disagree with something or pick up on a weak argument, but sometimes one simply has to agree to differ, and find a way to do that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just one point of clarification: I wasn't "keeping a list of perceived wrongs in userspace" in the file in question - I had just started (less than 24 hours) compiling the evidence of the disruptive behavior, much as Greg is doing now with me at User:Greg L/sandbox (only mine was just a short list of diffs and a few short comments), when the MfD was filed. Does that effort seem creepy to you? Greg obviously genuinely feels my behavior is problematic and needs addressing via RFC/U, so he has started compiling what he believes is evidence of that behavior. I think that's fine. And that's exactly what I did, except I was hoping to resolve the situation without having to go to formal DR - that just starting to compile the evidence would be sufficient to bring the disruption of the editor's behavior to his attention and persuade him to stop.

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

Your edit on Dicklyon's page - just started a file about your inappropriate and disruptive behavior here: I hope this will be enough to give you pause the next time you find yourself inclined .... It would be great to never have to add to it again - sounds like something out of a Raymond Chandler novel. "Listen, Marlowe." Big Al indicated a folder on his desk. "I got a file here on you. It would be great if the DA never had to read it." How did you think the guy was going to react? Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the comment truncated in a way that makes it look like a threat rather than convey the constructive purpose I intended. What the comment actually said in full: "I hope this will be enough to give you pause the next time you find yourself inclined to comment about people rather than content, or revert a change without reading and evaluating it first"

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

What it sounded like was a threat and, with the greatest of respect, since there was no point in making the comment if you thought he would ignore it, anyone reading it would suppose that your hope was that the threat would make him hesitate to cross you again. "I'm watching you Marlowe." Big Al tapped the folder meaningfully. "Maybe next time you'll think twice before you poke your nose into my business." At the very least, it shows that you are right to think that your edits are coming across as something other than what you intended. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought one possibility of how he would react would be to ignore it. The other possible reaction, the one I was hoping for, was what I said above about commenting about others instead of content in general, and about blindly (without reading) reverting others in general (not just me). Anyway, it had nothing to do with crossing me. I didn't think or feel about it that way, nor did I wish to convey that. This makes me wonder what he did think of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

What are *humans* to you? Just pawns to move aside in your war to always have your way? Do you have any idea how man man-hours have been devoted by the community to lean over backwards to deal with your presence on Wikipedia? Do you realize how much time Elen of the Roads devotes now to trying to straighten you out? Do you not care about any of this? I conclude you don’t care one iota and only care about whether you get your way. GTBacchus wrote this on his talk page (User talk:GTBacchus#So sick of this bullshit): …until you come along with your revolting attitude, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER let up, no matter how ROTTEN you make other volunteers feel about giving their hard work and time to a project they used to love. That didn’t seem to bother you much. I note that you did profess to really like his very last post as he stood on the bow of his ship and jumped into the water, in which he concluded with Someone gently teach him, please; that part you apparently really liked a whole big bunch since you proclaimed it a “gem.”

THAT is why the sandbox was started; so we can press to an RFC/U, which is precisely in accordance with Wikipedia policy—and for the right reason. God it takes time, but it’s being worked on nonetheless and others are coming to help. Greg L (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, this MfD issue is not settled, as it seems to be driving you to file an RFC/U about me. It really bothers me that anyone would think I lied or was deceptive. That's why I'm still trying to get some insight about it, and Elen's reaction - that that comment I made looked like a threat to not "cross me" - has been helpful. It's important to me that you not believe that I lied or was deceptive. Is there anything I can do to persuade you otherwise? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deep breath GregL! Whatever you do, don't start to take it personally. There is potentially a less cynical explanation, although Born2cycle may not like it. A vital element in human communication is the ability to predict how another person will interpret and react to something we do or say. We use a number of tools such as immediate cues, knowledge of the individual, social convention, previous experience, a theory of mind and empathy. On the internet there are no immediate cues and you may not know the individual, so if you rely on those factors to get you through the communicating day, and are less strong in the empathy and less expansive in the theory of mind areas, run into significant communication difficulties. Add to this that on Wikipedia, the social convention is not clear (if you read WP:CIVIL you'd think it was describing two maiden aunts discussing a flower arrangement), and the socio-legal framework is in a constant flux, and you've just kicked out three quarters of what probably a lot of people normally use to temper their communications.
Taking what was said to Dicklyon as an example, it immediately put me in mind of the Godfather making an offer you can't refuse. It would probably have reminded some others of being called to the headmaster's study - "don't let me see you in here again, boy." Others will have thought of "I'm watching you, Wazowski. Always watching" from Monsters, Inc - or a real life experience with their own boss. It's clear that all of these are very negative, and are going to get a very negative response from the other party. However, if it doesn't bring anything like that to mind in the poster, they might think from previous experience (maybe they did this to a junior colleague who wasn't able to respond in a less than receptive way) that it would work. Same with the badgering - a cop or a philosopher trained in the Socratic method would use the technique in a specific setting (I have once described the Socratic method to a policeman, and had him explain that they called it 'verballing'), but would know from other cues not to use it when enquiring what was for dinner ("honey, if you ever want dinner again, you'll shut up right now...."). Without those cues, and without an expansive theory of mind, it might never occur that all it was doing was pissing some people off. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that may sound a bit cod psychology, but it's based on working with quite a few people here on the 'pedia. Born2cycle, if you are genuinely a bit bewildered by why people react the way you do, and are only just beginning to realise that how they are reacting is not primarily to do with the content but to do with the delivery, then this is your challenge. An intelligent person can craft a set of rules that helps them to avoid problems, but you have to work at it, and accept that you have to change the way you express yourself. Marriage guidance councillors do this a lot - the stakes and rewards are lower here, but it is probably still worth the effort if you want to give it a go. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting B2C: Greg, this MfD issue is not settled. Uh-huh. And that view pretty much proves that GTBacchus, when he wrote …until you come along with your revolting attitude, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER let up, *might* have put his finger on the pulse of what makes B2C tick.

But I can’t afford to devote so much time to do what I think is right. For me, this wasn’t about *getting* B2C. I have an expression I use in real life: “He (or she or it or that) is a bug splat on my windshield of life. Press the pedal to the metal and move on.” I got started on this because I noticed Dicklyon embroiled in an MfD and then discovered that B2C had driven GTBacchus bat-shit crazy with frustration over his inability (and he’s an admin by the way) to deal with B2C’s tendentiousness (what B2C describes as but one of my faults is perhaps over exuberance in using facts, logic and reason to explain something to people who apparently just can't get it). I was motivated to take this one on because I had noticed that Wikipedia did not have an effective way to deal with chronically tendentious editors; there are policies against it, and an essay does a pretty darn good job of defining it, but the community seems to be galactically incompetent at dealing with it.

So I thought “I’ll roll up my sleeves, see if I can serve up a paradigm process for doing so, ignore B2C’s wikilawyering and arguing his petty issues until the heat death of the universe, and shepherd an RFC/U on B2C.

But as I mentioned, this is too time consuming. And I hate waking up early and finding B2C on my mind. So I’ve decided to not pursue the RFC/U. It’s my version of what GTBacchus did: get away from B2C to be happier (only GTBacchus pondered his bellybutton and B2C and decided his best recourse was to get off Wikipedia entirely). I’ll blank my sandbox and I’ll let the community deal with B2C and enjoy his stimulating and collegial participation in the collaborative writing phenomenon that is Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like Thanks, Elen. I've added that to my collection of good advice for me. In this particular case, I think that Dicklyon took it relatively well - he just deleted the comment from his talk page with a dismissive summary comment[24]. By "relatively well" I don't mean that he took it very well in the absolute sense, just closer to the good end of the spectrum than how some others took it, particularly the editor who took it to MfD, a few others, and Greg in particular. In fact, at the MfD discussion, Dick was apparently so unbothered by the so-called "dirt" file that he initially voted to Keep and told Greg that he was "happy to ignore it"[25]. He later changed his mind and voted to Delete[26], but even then he never took nearly as hard a line about it as did Greg and the others. This is why I believe he understood I didn't mean it as a threat, and didn't take it as one. It's also why I was so perplexed by the much stronger reaction others had to it.

So, I think it comes down to this: I've dug myself quite a hole. Regardless of whether it's true or not, my behavior -- apparently mostly my delivery, and, I suspect, volume of commentary -- has caused me to be perceived by many as being tendentious, and people use this to justify waving AGF with me.

Several years ago someone filed an RFC/U about my alleged tendentiousness. The chief filer was an admin or later become one. In any case, they brought all this evidence and yet all five outside opinions unanimously said they saw no or very little evidence of problematic behavior. At the MfD almost everyone who weighed in had past experience with me and saw my behavior with that file as problematic, but outsider Sphilbrick voted to keep, understood what I was doing, and didn't see a problem. With a few exceptions, much of the input in the AN discussion was divided almost entirely based on whether people had disagreed with me in the past (if they had, they were very likely to vote in favor of the ban, if not, then opposed). So obviously I leave a bad taste in people's mouths when I disagree with them. Learning to disagree in an agreeable way... I guess that's what this is about. A challenge indeed.

Anyway, thank you very much for your advice, and letting me vent. Hopefully I will improve because of all this. Please never hesitate to give me advice or a suggestion about delivery, or anything else for that matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, if you want to know how I felt, it was "annoyed" by your obviously hollow threat. When I ignored it by reverting with summary "Nack", you added a complaint about that. I hope you kept a copy of your diffs so you can go back and review the reasons why I was commenting on your behavior. And review your distortion of fact in saying that I would "revert a change without reading and evaluating it first." If you're interested in improving, put some energy into listening to complaints about your behavior. And by listening, I don't mean always coming back with "I don't understand; can explain exactly what rule I violated?" Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I honestly feel like I'm not understanding something. On Dec 21 at 00:07 you reverted the change in question[27]. At 00:09 you wrote: "I haven't even looked at what you're proposing or what it's implications are beyond the fact that it seems to bear on an argument that you are presently in." [28]. Isn't that reverting without reading and evaluating first? And remember that this is a situation in which my edit was accompanied with a fairly detailed explanation/justification at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost. Here we are over a month later and, so far as I know, you still have not responded substantively to what I said there, or how I (or Kotniski, and others, subsequently, multiple times) justified it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, isn't it disruptive or even a kind of a NPA violation to object to a proposal based on who is making the proposal rather than the content of the proposal[29]? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief, B2C; don’t you know when to let up? No one here is going to play your games anymore, where you continually raise the same tired old issues and dare people to chase each one down and prove them false one by one; that’s just playing your game, which amounts to “ignore facts and fervently wish that people are retards who can’t see the truth.” I note your propensity to “sum things up” in a manner that always manages to look like “So, everyone who has a problem with me are pretty much those who disagree with me and… so Elen… what you’re saying is that if I just deliver my message better, then that will solve everything.” No, it won’t. Your summaries are either self-serving posturing for later use, or you are once again wrenching your shoulder out of its socket as you pat yourself on the back.

    In particular, your “put a pretty pink ribbon on your message” conveniently fails to acknowledge or address GTBacchus’s complaint about you: …until you come along with your revolting attitude, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER let up. Is that the first time on Wikipedia you heard that sort of complaint? Do you care to address that one?

    The bottom line is this: you’re like the pit bull that had no damned clue when to quit. And your pathological tendency to deflect such criticisms with things like All I can figure is that you're annoyed by my ability to successfully build consensus, and this royal jewel: but one of my faults is perhaps over exuberance in using facts, logic and reason to explain something to people who apparently just can't get it make people want to puke. Now…

    My prediction is that you will be hauled up for another ANI or RfC or RFC/U in the near future and somewhere in there will be a profoundly frustrated editor who had foolishly thought he could make a hobby of Wikipedia but had the misfortune of crossing paths with you, only to be fed a metric ton of Iranian-centrifuged, weapons-grade bullonium about how the only *possible* reason he could be having difficulty with you is because he must actually be “annoyed with your ability to successfully build consensus and exhibit inescapable logic.” Now I’m going to sit back and give you all the rope you need to prove me right. Try putting this one in your hall of fame of good quotes. Greg L (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, do you believe this kind of diversionary personal attack might be persuasive? Diversions aside, my questions above to Dicklyon stand unanswered. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your rhetorical question suggests, unfortunately, that it was not persuasive. That’s unfortunate. I note also that my good-faith request that you address how it is you provoked Admin:GTBacchus to the extent that he quit Wikipedia remains unanswered. And that is arguably a more important question than the one you asked Dicklyon. Greg L (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can do is I don't know, but I can explain that. Of course I know the reasons he has given... having to do with my treating issues too seriously, etc. I presume that he believes those reasons are true. Whether that's really why he quit, or if even he really quit (as opposed to taking another break), probably nobody knows, perhaps not even he; certainly not me. Human motivation is far more complex than that. Fuck, I don't even know why I'm here. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good response. But I can tell you are frustrated right now. I can also tell you seem intent on trying to figure out how to walk through the mine field that is human interaction. Goodbye Greg L (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lanka is an island country that has been known by many names. Probably knew that already. Who mentioned minefieds? They, unfortunately have had plenty of those on that small,mysterious island. cheers, a talk page lurker, NewbyG ( talk) 08:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Golly jeepers! And here I thought I pissed people off... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A shout (sotto voce)[edit]

User:Target for Today is presently under discussion at ANI regarding rampant category creation, where you have opined.

One of TfT's creations, Category:Former military facilities in Pennsylvania, is at cfd with so far a unanimous 'No' (6 out of 6). Today TfT has created "14:08, 22 January 2012 (diff | hist) N Category:Former military facilities in New Jersey ‎ (sibling of Category:Former military facilities in Pennsylvania) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]".

Likewise Category:Cold War sites established in 1951 is unlikly to survive at cfd and today Tft has created 2 more siblings.

This is exactly the behaviour that precipitated the ANI: creation of strings of unnecessary categories which do not survive cfd and persistent refusal to discuss anything. Oculi (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I block myself?[edit]

Is there a Wikipedia policy against being irreverent in the evening??? Greg L (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should go thrash yourself with nettles...:) At once. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso edit warring again[edit]

Back in July, you warned him here about edit warring, but now he's edit warring with what appears to be a new user, with incivil edit summaries, on Paul Morphy.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Both him and his "opponent" in the edit war have been reported to ANEW.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "Whisper"[edit]

You have new message/s Hello, Elen. You have a message at User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions's talk page. I like this {{Whisperback}} - not as big and ugly as the {{tb}}...

As you're the other person who's been really active there, having noticed you'd been busy lately, I thought I'd gently nudge, in case you'd missed it. If you hadn't missed it, sorry, because that would make this a nag... I think... Begoon talk 05:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI about B2C[edit]

Hi Elen. I just thought I’d keep you in the loop about Born2cycle. He posted a “second warning” of harassment here on my talk page. He wasn’t appreciative of my pointing out here at WT:AT that he had more edits than anyone on that talk page and that protracted amount of posting was wearing people out. I intend to sit back now and watch him really take to heart everything that’s been told to him this last week from various people—including you—and applies all that advise to practice as he interacts in a new, collegial fashion in the collaborative writing environment that is Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI for Rich Farmbrough[edit]

There is a thread about R.F. on ANI right now [30]. It's worth noticing that even though he knows about the thread (he commented in it), he appears to still be carrying out the disputed edits... — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Keeping order at WP:TITLE[edit]

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!

NoeticaTea? 04:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
See also: User talk:Kwami § Involved admin
--Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.
NoeticaTea? 06:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. NoeticaTea? 06:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]



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[edit]

…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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]



Is this a conflict of interest?[edit]


Hugh McFadden is being edited by User talk:Hugh McFadden, he has added to more articles [31] 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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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


Editor has breached your warning[edit]


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[[32]].   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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]


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)[reply]


Checkuser Request[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


That file protection...[edit]


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)[reply]



Hello[edit]


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)[reply]



Roger Boscovich[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]



My little pony nonsense[edit]


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)[reply]



A barnstar for you![edit]







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)[reply]





How and when to end lockdown of WP:AT[edit]


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. 

  2. After receiving endorsements to close, should I come here with a request to unlock?
    3. 

  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)[reply]



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)[reply]


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



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)[reply]


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. 

  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. 

  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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]




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)[reply]



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)[reply]


And, in a different guideline, Dicklyon edit wars again, as soon as the page is unprotected[33]. I guess that page could also do with protection + poll.  --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]



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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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


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)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012[edit]








WT:AT poll closed[edit]


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)[reply]



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


Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ[edit]


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)[reply]



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


The Signpost: 30 January 2012[edit]








E-mail[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]


Zhand38[edit]


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)[reply]



NLP[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]


Apology[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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))[reply]


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)[reply]


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))[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3[edit]


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



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)[reply]


Mail Call[edit]


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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
 - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits for copyright infringement  ("close paraphrase")[edit]


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. 

  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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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


Wanted!  (Preferably alive...)[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]



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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Vandal Again[edit]


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)[reply]



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[edit]








Nomination of Sam and Diane for deletion[edit]


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)[reply]



Congratulations[edit]







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)[reply]



Block explanation[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Maybe wanna help with a similarly tough case?[edit]


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)[reply]



Please implement the consensus wording[edit]


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)[reply]



MSU Interview[edit]


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)[reply]



Survey[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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





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)[reply]


Working things out on the talk page first[edit]


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)[reply]



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 [34], [35], 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)[reply]


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)[reply]


OK, here's the problem[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]


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)[reply]


ACMEWikiNet[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


Born2cycle[edit]


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)[reply]



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


  • 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)[reply]



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)[reply]


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[36], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Your post has been tagged as humor[edit]


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



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


Thanks for protecting WP:V[edit]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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


  • You asked me to remind you to restore the semi-protection on WP:V; this is your alarm call! :-)—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • That's now the 8th independent editor to revert the tag, and you reinserting it... and being happy about preserving the "stable" version. Yay for another semi-protection based on this tag? For vandalism the page was protected, right? Facepalm Facepalm Doc talk 10:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, it's historically been semi protected because of things like this, which was why I re-protected it. I am on record as saying I will block anyone who edit wars over that bloody tag, so I have blocked SMarshall for 24hrs - which I'm sure isn't going to make him happy, but he was a major reverter previously, so I am viewing it as a continuation of his previous actions.  The IP is undoubtedly a regular user - anyone willing to fess up that it was them or shall I run the checkuser tool? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you run the checkuser tool please, Elen.  As you correctly predicted, I was less than thrilled about having to go through the process involved in reversing your block, so I'd very much like to know who the original culprit was.—S Marshall T/C 15:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I will when I get home. It seems very dubious that it was a random IP. I do apologise for what the community has viewed as (and I must therefore regard as) my lapse in judgement in administering a block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology fully accepted, and the matter duly forgotten.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very gracious. I appreciate it.  CU has not identified a logged out editor. The IP geolocates to Prague and is static (you can find that out from the public record), and not used by any other Wikipedia account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


 No chance would that IP have been an honest editor trying to cheat, that was obvious. Just an honest IP. The block of user S marshall was absolutely spot on. The reversal of it - admin roulette maybe? Too bad.  NewbyG  ( talk) 04:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • See [37] This was one of three disruptive edits by user:Arthur Rubin, and all together they constitute a  carefully calculated personal attack. Why should Arthur Rubin not be blocked for 24 hours?  NewbyG  ( talk) 04:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


May you have a day full of WikiLove[edit]







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)[reply]





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



Not necessary?[edit]


I state that it IS necessary to tag the userpages of users who have been community banned [38]. 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)[reply]



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

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Need Some Help with a Problematic Range[edit]


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



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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


The Signpost: 13 February 2012[edit]








More protection needed[edit]


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)[reply]



Trollolol[edit]

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)[reply]



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)[reply]


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)[reply]


Request for assistance[edit]


User:Godmadeit has been changing three pages of California towns, in the demographics section to read "homosexual households" instead of "same-sex households" and "heterosexual households" for "opposite-sex households," with erratic explanations in the editing summaries.  I have left notes on User talk:Godmadeit's  talk page saying we need to leave that terminology in place because it is the official terms of the U.S. Census bureau as cited.  Here are the histories where you can see the edits/counteredits:




Thank you for your help.  Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



He seems to have stopped. Perhaps your pointing him at the definitions used by the census worked.  Let me know if he comes back and starts the same nonsense. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's back.  User:Norcalal fixed the Arcata page, the other page is still unfixed.  Thank you!  Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have blocked him to encourage communication, as I note he has not responded on any talk page including his own.  Feel free to fix the problem article (again).Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Calm has descended[edit]


So what happens when the page is unprotected? I am sorry, but my reading is that the edit war which has been going on for some time, will simply resume. And there are threats to disrupt the page on the current talk page. I do not personally wish to edit there. Also, I would like to disengage from an ugly talk page. Will the policy page have to be protected again? And no administrative action taken against the long term disruption? Unfortunate, but I got caught in the crossfire. Lucky they are bytes, not bullets. Cheers  NewbyG  ( talk) 18:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will block anyone and everyone who fights over adding tags.  As to the rest.....I actually see no reason why these policy pages should be editable prior to consensus discussion anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Elen, I filed a complaint about NewbieG at WP:AN/I#User:Newbyguesses disrupting WT:Verifiability and got a suggestion to ask you to look into it instead of asking there.  Can you help?  WT:V has becomes completely impossible to follow with him over-dominant and uninterpretable posts.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Hi. Um, the protection of WP:V elapsed, and no action was taken to curb the cowboy editors there. I got blocked by a spurious 911 call. Edit war about to break out again at WP:V.


I edit in good faith. I wonder if you have any suggestions or advice for me to get on better in the future, I would be grateful. If you become aware of any problems with my editing in future, please get me at usertalknewbyguesses. Sorry, but how does one deal with a cowboy going off to ANI with a provocative and prejudicial section header, and getting away with edit warring at ANI, and flouting every talk page guideline in the book. Even if an experienced and most useful editor, which I acknowledge?  NewbyG  ( talk) 04:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, though I'm from El Paso, I'm not actually a cowboy.  Some advice:  post carefully, less frequently; be clear; don't insert subheadings in between existing talk items in a section; review WP:NPA, and comment on contributions more than on editors.  I'll try to do the same.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the advice. I will try to take it on board. I edit in good faith, it rankles to be labelled disruptive in a prejudicial manner, have you never heard of civility and natural justice? And why did you (user:DL) not raise the matter at the talk page? That is the way you would have taken consensus into account, surely you have heard of consensus? And you have got at least most of the talk page guidelines wrong, still, or you just don't want to know. I had better stop before I start ranting. Good to hear from you, and I will comment on content. I really hope you tape that motto to your computer monitor, because you have been in breach of it for so long that it may be too late to change, but please I hope so. All the best. Woops, I do mean that NewbyG  ( talk) 05:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have been thinking about ... no reason why these policy pages should be editable prior to consensus discussion anyway.


Good idea, but (1) how can edits be discussed if no-one is editing? That is one reason the talk page descends into chat. And everyone talks about Bob's proposal, and Jack's draft and My position is and if you don't like it and as far as I am concerned, and Ï am addressing you personally. Personally, I think it stinks, I can actually smell the rankness of the page.


(2) If the page is permanently disrupted, then no one edits. There hasn't been any sign of consensus at that page all year, so consensus discussion is a forlorn hope. The personalization on that page is nothing other than disgusting, judged by the values of a civilized world, not talking about our civility and consensus policies. But since we have those policies, is there any reason they ought not to apply at WTV? They do not, and have not applied there for a number of years, I have lurked the talk page often, and always avoided it like the plague it is.


(3) If disruption is allowed to flourish, the policy stays stable, who cares what it says, it is stable. Maybe disrupting the talk page is the secret weapon that keeps policy pages stable, and the kiddies can all sleep safe at night. Guess I will have to comply with the unwritten laws, and let the disruptors flourish, since that's the way it gets done. And ignore the written policies, consensus and civility? Since that is the way the wind blows in wikipedia space. Writing policies for others to conform to, and getting away with being above the law. I am not joking, but my sense of humour may recover in a year or so. Think about what I say? And please any advice, give it. But by email please if it involves tearing me apart, I don't like that in public. cheers.


Comment on content, not on contributors. Thing is,everyone says it, and everyone ignores it, and part of the problem, (other than just dumb habits of speech), is that there are no edits to discuss.


This [39] is the sort of non-compliant rubbish I am talking about. Filled up with first person, second person, third person, personalization, TLDR, not a diff within cooee, and there are dozens just like it. That user has returned to the TLDR blitzkreig which was slightly curtailed for a bit, I reminded em of TPG a score of times and was treated with contempt. Yeah, I got mad, but that is not it. I put the project over my own personal comfort. I won't risk my sanity though, I cannot put up with that gross dross, especially since our policies and guidelines say that I should not have to.  NewbyG  ( talk) 09:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


OK, at WT:V, they have removed 12,000 bytes or so. Legitimate comments, particularly ones which questioned any edit about the edit warring, and some comments of other editors. Slso, they have taken the opportunity bto label it all disruption, whereas there was quite a deal of helpful stuff there. Talk about give a dog a bad name, does no one at en.wikipedia know of natural justice, or common decency, or common sense? What barbarity. Do I need diffs here or, can you read it there or WP:DGAF. Don't matter much to me, I ain't going back there and if no one can keep the house in order well, so be it. I must learn to lower my expectations in line with the utterly lowest common denominator.  NewbyG  ( talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 20 February 2012[edit]








Van cats[edit]


I have boldy merged the junk article at Van cat naming controversy into Van cat.  Much of it should be deleted as unsourced soapboxing. Thought you might like to know. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I think you've done the world a favour. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stripped out the obvious racist barbs, of all kinds, and warned against any others or WP:AN/I will get some visitors. >;-)  I think the material that remains on the controversy is actually encyclopedic, though it could be better sourced. I've also tried to clean up some of the confusion between the Van cat, Turkish Van and Turkish Angora articles; the sourcing is pretty clear at this point that Van cat is a landrace not a formal breed.  So I removed the three-years-stale merge tags. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to compare sources with the Turkish Van article, which wants stripping back to be about the breed in the modern fancy. As it is, it's very confusing because Turkish Van contains a completely different description of the Van cat (the landrace) as well as the van cat of the cat fancy. The cats that live in Van are not always white (although they often are) - the legend of the mark in the article Turkish Van is about the cats from Van (the landrace) not the cats of the fancy, although the modern cats are defined by the mark on the back. Complete OR, but I once did a trawl of Flikr for tourist photos of cats living in Van, and although most were more or less white, many had the mark in the centre of the back, and some colour in the tail.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for commenting[edit]


I appreciate that you commented regarding a question on Salvio's talk page. I posted a reply which would benefit if you would clarify the regards. I remain - My76Strat (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Request for arbitration[edit]


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dalmatia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—




Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Sonic Generations edit warrior[edit]


The protection you were kind enough to put on Sonic Generations expired yesterday, and today he's back, again using 174.57.156.12 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Could we get a dose of your own brand of justice to help resolve this again? Cheers. Яehevkor ✉ 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I have nailed his head to a coffee table for six months this time, as it's the same IP as 3 months ago.  Let me know if he reappears at a different IP address. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. He's back already, this time as 75.151.188.73 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), used before in January. Яehevkor ✉ 17:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's him at school.  Gah!  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. It's a mystery what the reasoning/justification is behind all this. Яehevkor ✉ 22:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Here we go again, this time using both 173.15.134.141 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) and 75.151.188.73 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Яehevkor ✉ 15:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



quick request[edit]


Could you restore this for me? File:Perfect World logo.png. The deleting admin didn't notice the article in question had been vandalized [40]. Thanks!--Crossmr (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Talkback[edit]


Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at  C3F2k's talk page.
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
 
C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:V at WP:DR/N[edit]


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Elen of the Roads, User:SlimVirgin, User:Tryptofish, User:A Quest For Knowledge, User:Dreadstar, User:Doc9871, User:Newbyguesses, User:Littleolive oil, User:90.179.235.249, User:S Marshall, User:North8000". Thank you. -- NewbyG  ( talk) 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Need an Opinion[edit]


Would the following sites be considered a reliable source under our rules? 1, 2, and 3.  I feel the first and third are more "blog-ish", but the second might be useable, but want to confirm. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Apologies for temporarily removing your post - I thought you'd accidentally broke the formatting (and I'm not clever enough to fix it), but it turned out to be some random bloody vandal.  Anyway, here's my take

  1. Capital Community News.  This appears to be based directly on a press release from We Act Radio.  That said, I don't see a problem with reliability as far as We Act Radio's motivation goes. You'd want other sources if making a case as to how popular they are.
    2. 

  2. RBR.com is a trade paper (see http://www.rbr.com/aboutus.html). Again, probably based on a press release, but no reason to treat it as unreliable, particularly given the largely factual content
    3. 

  3. Alter.net seems to be a journal with staff (see http://blogs.alternet.org/staff/). The interview is by a staffer, so you're good to go on this one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


No worries on the removal, I didn't notice. :)  Thanks for checking on those, I will add those to the page.  We are trying to establish that WPWC Radio is operated by "We Act Radio", but owned by JMK Communications, Inc.  This will help source that.  Thanks again for your help. :)  Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 27 February 2012[edit]








Disruption of Verification debate -- SPI[edit]


Hi Elen. I know you are aware of recent disruption associated with WP:Verification, and that you have taken steps to find out who is behind what is happening. Well, I've formed a view about this, and have opened an SPI... See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roger Pearse. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Yes - could you run that CU to clear this up please, Elen? I have no clue where NewbyGuesses edits from and have never encountered them before WP:V, but if it's anywhere near where I edit from with my static IPs I would be shocked. Because it's a huge world, and if there were ties between me, NewbyGuesses, or any of the other accounts named in the SPI, I'm sure they are evident. I have always detested socking and make a mockery of it on my userpage. This is the first time I've been accused seriously of being a sock, and it's amusing - but not in a good-faith way for me. I'm disgusted. Doc talk 07:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi user:Elen. Just to be clear, I am telling you I edit from the southern hemisphere, go ahead and check by all means. Just think, if there were sock-puppetry involved, would I come to this page so soon after user:Doc? I am trusting you to have some clue. That seems such a rare quality, this shambles at WT:V is almost beyond belief, The Three Stooges had more brains than this lot of gooses who wish to persecute me and block good-faith IP editors. Won't say more, other ears are listening, but incapable of hearing, apparently. Who has a brain here, any way. I have been accused of all sorts of things, and by editors whose bad faith is an exemplar of same. Bah!  NewbyG  ( talk) 09:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  •  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust I've asked at the SPI if someone with greater technical knowledge can confirm whether there is anything to suggest either of the IPs is hinky.  But if someone really is enough of a technical wizard to appear to be editing from the Czech Republic when he is in Australia, then he can probably spoof the rest of the evidence as well, and CU will prove nothing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


@ user:Elen of the roads -Oh, dear. When will these stupid people apologise for their transgressions against decency?  NewbyG  ( talk) 13:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


BTW, if you are wondering what the time is in Brisbane, it's 25 past 1 am (tomorrow!). Weather is  muggy. See, I posted ages ago on user talkNewbyguesses


Hi, Kevin. That's all good. I am most likely to be on WP between 22:00 till 05:00 (UTC) weekdays. Say from 8am till 3pm where I am. I mostly seem to be making minor edits these days, and probably discussing too much in wikipediaspace. Been having service outs and computer crashes also. -- ...  Cheers! --(talk) 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can no more fake whereabouts, with my minimal pc skills, than some of these users seem able to fake AGF, or clue. Good night,  NewbyG  ( talk) 15:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sarcasm element of the pixie dust comment may have been lost. Given that you and Doc don't even sound like each other, it was a non-starter even before they started dragging in an IP from Prague.....!  Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Peace!  NewbyG  ( talk) 03:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Request for permission to remove userpage.[edit]


Hi Elen,

Apologies for using my IP. I'd like to delete my Userpage, which I cannot edit at present. Sad to say there has been no response from ARBCOM to my email sent over two months ago, neither acknowledgement of receiving nor in reply to content.

Kind Regards,

DMSBel  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.161.154 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] 



I do apologise for that.  Could you send it again and I will ensure that you at least get an answer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Elen, I would be grateful if you could confirm whether or not the email was received? While I appreciate the apology it doesn't seem necessary if the email was lost in cyberspace. I don't wish to resend it as a fair bit of time has passed. If ARBCOM did in fact receive it, it would of course help to close the matter if an acknowledgement and reply was forthcoming, and as I have other matters to attend to in the real world I'd like to be able to file this issue away.82.18.161.154 (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Disappointed with the handling of the situation, and lack of communication, but I am drawing a line under this. I won't be returning to Wikipedia though until I see some changes.82.18.161.154 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Dickmojo[edit]


Hi Elen,

I have offered and Dickmojo has accepted me as his mentor.  He also appears to understand that he isn't allowed to discuss acupuncture (and all it took was a quote from Proverbs!  Maybe there's something there :)).  Would you be willing to unblock?  I don't foresee that he will be causing any disruption.  Thanks! Noformation Talk 21:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Have unblocked. Up to him now.  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note[edit]


Please see this thread. - jc37 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



List in my userspace[edit]


Hello, Ellen. I was wondering if you could review the list -- now that it has been corrected to one containing external links -- and provide any suggestions. Hope it isn't too much trouble. Thank you! Wekn reven 09:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Can't see anything that's a problem now - lists of sources, resources, sourced quotes etc are all fine. I must admit, when I saw the pipe "Apollo program" I thought for a minute you were referring toMoon landing conspiracy theories and my heart sank somewhat - but of course it was just a list of senior people on the Apollo program who hold non-Darwinian views (I was already aware that a number did). I think a challenge to the construction of any list (should you ever be advising anyone wanting to create a list article) might be that phrased as it is, it must not ignore scientists whose views are shaped by non-western belief systems - something which the compilers of such lists have I suspect a natural tendency to do where these alternates do not suit the compiler's belief system any better than Darwinian evolution does. Not a problem for your set of resources of course, you are not obliged to retain or remove except as suits yourself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yeah, I noticed the non-western organizations don't seem to compile very many such lists. I have reason to believe the Korean one does, but not understanding the language, going through their website on gtrans can get quite tedious. Wekn reven 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gtrans can be pretty hopeless. A Korean translator Category:Translators_ko-en may be willing to help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Injustice done - can this be undone?[edit]


Hi Elen; I've just been reading through the SPI in which the IP 90.179.235.249 was mentioned.

I'm really not happy about the way this editor was treated, right from the initial assumption that it was a "logged-out user" causing "disruption".  Working from a presumption of innocence, and looking at the whole picture, this has been handled very badly, and this user has now stated that they don't plan to contribute any more, having been contributing since 2009.  Having an account is not compulsory.  In the interests of fairness, and coming from an entirely principle-centred standpoint, I really do feel that this editor has been unjustly treated; far too may bad-faith assumptions seem to have been happening, and I cannot see any way of justifying a block here.  I'm absolutely sure that a named-account user who had been editing since 2009 would not have been blocked on such flimsy grounds; and though I do have some respect for Jehochman, I really think that on this occasion he went off half-cocked without doing any basic research (such as checking the contribs history).  I think this user was entitled to a presumption of innocence, and to be treated just as fairly as a named account user would have been. Bearing in mind the injustice of the initial accusation, I think the user's response was entirely understandable, and really didn't amount to much of a personal attack, bearing in mind that a CU had been called for on him/her without anyone apparently having even checked to see if they were a regular editor.  I'd have been a bit miffed, too.  Wouldn't you, or anyone else?  Can anything be done here to undo the injustice? There's no getting away from the fact that Jehochman had been editing in the same area, and I (sadly) really do think it comes under the heading of "involved".  A long-term IP contributor was just over-the-top stomped on.  Pesky (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



This editing approach to this policy case is being mishandled, and it is demonstrable. Any editor (admin or otherwise) that wants to jump in and solve this case through BRD and IAR (ignoring WP:CONLIMITED and the RfC's that preceded): it can all be reverted back to the "status quo". It shouldn't have to go that way: but we can just ignore everything anyway. I like Elen as an editor and respect her very much, but I do think it might be better for her to step away from this particular one, as well as Jehochman. The neutrality seems to be gone, and there are many other admins around to deal with this page who have no declared (or undeclared) involvement: because they have not previously weighed in on this issue in any way. Is there anyone left in that category? Hah! Doc talk 08:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the entire thing sprang from a false assumption; the IP editor's reaction was perfectly understandable, and a named-account editor would not have been treated the same way.  Pesky (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I do agree with that, and I, myself, am certainly guilty of treating IP editors differently from others. I used to hate 'em, thinking they were all trying to avoid scrutiny. I was properly educated further on that matter at some point, and I'm sure Elen knows to treat named accounts and IPs with the same degree of good faith. A named account would be more... "accountable", sure, and their edits easier to scrutinize. But I have to agree with Pesky that this IP seemed to get a somewhat raw deal on the good-faith end because of "outside circumstances". I don't think it's Elen's fault, but it should be addressed by her. Elen... the floor is yours? Doc talk 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was just an oversight, but it was an oversight on the part of several editors here.  This was a fellow human being who just got hurt, after years of contributing, for the lack of one click on their contributions history.  I find that disturbing.  This editor just got really hurt because of an instant assumption of bad faith. :o( IP editors are people, too.  They have feelings, too.  Pesky (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Adding: they don't seem to have any contributions since 28 February.  Pesky (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Not completely sure why this is being addressed to me.  As I recall, it was S Marshall who suggested it was a logged out editor, in defence of his revert of the edit, of which as you know I disapproved of so much that I blocked him, an action that the community disagreed with. I checked out his suggestion, found it was not true, and repudiated the suggestion on this page (in a couple of places - read above) and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Roger_Pearse, which of course included the suggestion that this chap, Doc, Newby and whoever the hell Roger Pearse is are all the same person. I note that Marshall and Hochman both repeated it despite my saying this. Perhaps you could explain what you think I can do at this point? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure anything can be done about this: the 48 hour block was indefensible, but nevertheless was allowed to expire, sullying the IP's reputation, (and mine and user:Doc9871's at the SPI). It also sullies the reputation of WP:ANI as an informed forum. But User:Elen of the Roads has acted with sober judgement and integrity, and has no further obligation. What is to be done? Learn, and try to show a good example, each of us.  NewbyG  ( talk) 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Elen; just FYI, and in case you think there might be anything you can do, I've just posted on Jehochman's talk (and dreading the consequences, oh dear ...), and also on Tide Rolls' talk.  The IP editor was:


  1. Accused of socking
    2. 

  2. Accused of racism
    3. 

  3. Dragged over to AN/I
    4. 

  4. Dragged over to SPI
    5. 

  5. Blocked for 48 hours


and has now  not edited since 28 February, their most recent contributions having been to the SPI page. Could you maybe discuss with Tide Rolls and Jehochman, to see if anything can be done to make this editor feel more like contributing again?  Pesky (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


P.S.  I've also just posted to S Marshall's talk to see if, between us, we can undo some of the hurt.  Pesky (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


WP:V protected again[edit]


[41] This is unfortunate, but not disastrous. Thank you. I can not get a grasp of the way the concept of "involvement"of a sysop can be manipulated. Just being the admin who protects the page, and making no partisan comment: this does not in my mind disqualify an admin from doing what must be done. Am I wrong? (Not that I think anything should or could be done at this time.)  NewbyG  ( talk) 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I'm sorry I had to protect - I just couldn't let the speed of editing changes continue.  If changes are agreed (and that ought to be one - it is murdering the English language to say that verifiability = the ability of an individual to perform the act of verification) - I will lift the protection or make the requested edits.  It is essential that a protecting admin has not expressed support for one side or the other, although I think that supporting the English language does not count here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo! Our aim is to write articles, and produce a magnificent encyclopedia. Mutilating the English language is antithetical to that aim. We must take WP:CONLIMITED into account and balance that with WP:BOLD. My understanding of WP:BRD is that it ought to get us moving forward, even on a POLpage, but you will notice that I have made no substantial edits to WP:V, my only edits looking to correct deficiencies of grammar, syntax and semantics. I may make mistakes, but we have scrutiny and input from a range of contributors to correct such individual mis-steps, and produce a sum which is greater than its individual components. Going back to real work in mainspace, where  some talk page discussions proceed with excellent civility and insight, despite the complexity of the issue. Thank you  NewbyG  ( talk) 21:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, PS I know it's not done to  talk about the bots behind their backs I was wondering does it seem that significantly more edit "conflicts" are occurring when the archiving from MiszaBot gets behind. Or maybe it is lunar cycles, or sunspot activity affecting the  troppo-sphere?  NewbyG  ( talk) 13:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


PN[edit]


I see you blocked him for "abusing multiple accounts". Before you did that, I had filed a CU request on meta-wiki given the cross-wiki nature of this abuse m:Steward_requests/Checkuser#PaoloNapolitano.40en.wikipedia. However, that was declined. Do en.wiki CUs have the ability to check accounts on other wikis as well then? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



No...or at least I don't.  He's abusing multiple accounts on this wiki.  Let me poke the stewards, I've started a page on the checkuser wiki that they should have access to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the Fr and De checkusers to take a look at the rest of his IPs --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I'm decoding this correctly, it looks like he was checked last year on the fr.wiki. (I'm not sure what RCU stands for there, but it's probably fr:WP:RCU). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's been trolling their Refdesk since forever. See mai 2011 and feb 2011. The interesting part is that he seems to have access to multiple Norway ISPs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Advice[edit]


Hi Elen.  I don't know if you've been following the RM at Genesis creation narrative#Requested Move and the subsequent close discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_three_admins_to_close_long_RfC, but here's the thing: I think that the close was terrible, I think that the closing admin is way out of his element, and I think policy was clearly on the side of a move.  The reason I'm posting this to your talk page is because I could really use your advice here as someone I have a lot of trust in as an admin and as an editor.  The truth is that I'm obviously convinced that I'm right but being that I'm so involved I can't possibly look at this objectively.  I'm not asking you to get involved with the dispute, but rather I would like your opinion as to whether the charges of impropriety and misinterpretation of policy I've levied are reasonable or if I'm simply grasping at straws at this point.  If you would like to say something off the record and not public you can also email me and I will keep it confidential.  Thank you. Noformation Talk 02:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh and no hard feelings if you don't have the time to get into this - I know it's long and I'm hopeing that you've already been paying attention. Noformation Talk 02:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I'll give it a look, but not at 3 in the morning :) I'm for bed I'm afraid. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, if you haven't already gotten into it don't worry about it.  At this point, regardless of the final outcome, I'm a bit too disillusioned with the bureaucracy to continue editing beyond reverting vandalism.  Thanks anyway. Noformation Talk 09:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Request[edit]


While you're in troll-quashing mode, would you mind taking a quick peek at this? I suspect some CU insight might be helpful here. 28bytes (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Never mind, Tnxman307 has taken care it. 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just got back in. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thankfully there are many quashers about! 28bytes (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Clarity[edit]


Since Floquenbeam is unable to provide any explanation, kindly explain as to why my action was wrong. And do not revert this post without even looking at it, please. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I'll do so. You don't understand copyright law. One cannot copyright the generalize plot of something. An embargo is not legally binding on entities that have not signed a non-disclosure agreement. This is why you were wrong on the facts. On the strike through, please review WP:TPO, which does not permit you to strike through copyright violations (which this was not, regardless). Finally, if you actually believed it was a copyright violation, you would have followed WP:CP, which instructs you to "Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can." You did not do this. Thus, you failed under all circumstances - you were wrong about copyright, and even if you were right, you did the wrong thing. Now drop it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Wait a second. You are quite wrong in the first statement itself. Now let me place the facts properly which you did not bother to check :-


Special screenings of John Carter have been held quite a few times until now. Entry into these screenings is either by payment (at a premium, available only at a few of the screenings) or by special passes. However, all screening attendants, be it media personnel, ordinary movie-goers or even studio members - in short EVERYONE - were mandated to sign an "embargo agreement" (basically the same as a non-disclosure agreement) which stated that viewers are strictly not allowed to reveal anything about the film (re-read it, anything) until the embargo lifts (which was March 2, 2012).


This includes all film details, be it plot/locations. Character names are obviously not copyrighted as they are part of the now-free-domain novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs. And in case anybody forgets, the screening viewers had to sign on an agreement, ALL of them. The viewers were explicitly prevented from posting anything on micro-blogging sites, social networking websites etc. Twitter tracking pre-March 2 showed that some people had seen the film; other than that, they could not say anything as they were bound to the written agreement (and the people said so as well).


Now is it clear as to why the film plot was copyrighted? I may have done the wrong thing, but the underlying matter was the fact that the material was copyrighted, a thing that many people are failing to see. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


We are not bound by legal agreements signed by our contributors. The fact that an editor may have violated an NDA means that editor may be held legally responsible per the terms of his contract - like I wrote above "An embargo is not legally binding on entities that have not signed a non-disclosure agreement." That an NDA exists does not make the information copywritten - it might make it a trade secret (in this case, it does not, as the plot of a movie in previews based on a book cannot be a trade secret, nor, even if it were, would there be any possible damages). You cannot copyright facts, regardless of how hard those facts are to find out. REGARDLESS, even if you are right on copyright law (you are not), you still took incorrect action in fixing the problem. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright is something that governments assign to creators of stuff. The film script would be copyright. If someone leaked you a copy of the script and you posted it on your blog, Mousecorp would be all over you for breach of copyright. And Mousecorp might argue that a ten page plot summary with quotes was sufficiently derivative to warrant a takedown notice.  But a one paragraph plot outline in your own words cannot breach copyright (it could if it was someone else's words, but that's a different matter) as an idea cannot be copyrighted.  Further, in this case, the film is based on a book which has been in print for 100 years, and is in the public domain [42].

A non disclosure agreement is a contract between two parties, intended to be legally binding, whereby the first party agrees to release information and the second party agrees not to publish it, not to pass it on to third parties, or to treat it as confidential. Only the signatories are party to the contract. If the second party breaches the terms of the NDA, the first party can sue.

Embargo is a term usually used in the media for a 'gentleman's agreement' that information will be made available in advance - to allow editors to prepare copy - but will not be published until the agreed time and date of the release. Breaching the embargo carries the penalty that next time, your newspaper won't get the information in advance.

The term embargo is also used by governments who wish to prevent something being published. In this case, the embargo can be for a number of years, such as UK Cabinet Office papers, which are embargoed for 30 years or more. Breach of government embargo can have serious consequences, depending on which country you are in, and what it is that you leaked.

Striking out other users talk page entries is not permitted. If they are copyvio, they should be removed following the instructions Hipocrite has already given you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Okay, so since Wikipedia didn't sign the NDA then we are not bound to it. Makes sense actually. I thought deleting an editor's comment would be too harsh a move to make, but in any case I now know what to do. Regardless, I was right on the fact that the plot should not have been revealed by the editor as he/she was bound to his/her NDA, but yes, since WP has not signed an agreement then its alright to post it here. Fine, I think its clear. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glad we sorted that out. *If* the user who posted had signed an NDA, Disney may consider sueing him, but they would have to go to court in Florida and persuade a judge to issue an injunction against Wikipedia to take down the information. Which they haven't done, and I'm sure they are aware that he posted it (I would guess Mousecorp has an intern watching all Disney related items on Wikipedia). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


BLP violation[edit]


This page should indeed have been semiprotected, but it's got nothing to do with WP:BLP violations. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Yeah, I know.  Said that at ANI.  I was trying to edit and use the phone at the same time, picked the wrong option.  Doesn't make any difference - the semi-p is appropriate to stop this guy readding his pet theory. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 05 March 2012[edit]








email[edit]


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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
 
Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion[edit]


Seems to me the tone is becoming un Elen like. Maybe time for a wikibreak -- if you can, be the other duck Nobody Ent 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Yes, time to take it off watchlist again for a whole. It's the determination to keep going from a wrong initial premise - that ScottyBerg was blocked because of information from the Checkuser tool that is somehow wrong - that is so annoying. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if anything I;ve said over there has added to your frustration at all; I'm not in any way interested in or motivated by that particular case, I'm just driven by the "what if / what when" case of the genuinely innocent. (>**)> Hugz; and have a beer.  Or Champagne.  Or whatever floats your boat. (On second thoughts, I'd advise not having enough of it to float anybody's boat; that could lead to unwanted consequences.  Pesky (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cup of Lady Grey tea, that's what I need.  Pesky, I don't think your suggestion would work, but I hope I didn't come across as rude about it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all rude.  I always find your thoughts insightful and interesting; you clearly think well.  Can you think of something which would work? The only time we really fail on something is when we stop trying.   Pesky (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Per Wikipedia:Verifiability Protection[edit]


Hi. I noticed you had protected WP:V recently when I was about to make an edit. Do you plan on changing it back to semi-protected at any point? In any case, I was going to add WP:VERIFIABLE to the list of shortcuts. —JmaJeremy talk contribs 04:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Email[edit]


I emailed you yesterday, but I'm not sure if you saw it. One question I asked in the email is moot now, but I would still appreciate some feedback from you. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I have responded, but probably only to the moot portion.  If you have further question, please email again. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. My concern is quite time-sensitive at this point, so if you have an opinion about it I would appreciate you giving it your attention as soon as possible. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Happy International Women's Day[edit]







Award for a great woman




On the internet no one knows if you're a dog, but I think you're of the female persuasion. Against kitchen slavery, and for women's writing: this award presented to a deserving woman. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Thank you so much. Yes, I am definitely of the female persuasion, and against kitchen slavery for anyone :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Your opinion would be appreciated again[edit]


Hi Elen, euh care to take a look at this user's contributions:

Ncboy2010 (talk · contribs)

what say you, they have appeared to have gone a bit bananas with HotCat, also creating wild
amounts of cats and lists like these List of humanoid alien species, Lists of fictional extraterrestrials.

See also this post at the user's talk page, and scrolling up you'll see that their rapidfire style of editing has led to several "Disambiguation link notification" messages, which they are not taking heed of, so all the links still point to the DAB pages. Sigh, sorry to lean on you, but wasn't really sure where to go with this and as it is reminiscent of a certain person that we both remember well, I figured I'd ask you for your advice. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



It looks like someone hit them with an elephant.  A fictional one. I know who you were thinking of, but I think this editor has a bit better grasp of why they got into difficulties here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay :-) I think I will post to their talk page though and ask them to fix all the dab page links that they have added all over the place. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 10:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments, please![edit]


On this :D  Pesky (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Spawning investigations[edit]


Your right, sorry about that. It has gotten a little messy. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Just let it work through will you. All your guesses about Awaaz-e-Kashmir are off base. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Question[edit]


I was twice reverted for this edit, but I thought that using alternative common names for a title is ok in the 1st sentence. Is it okay? Pass a Method talk 14:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



You both need to take it to the talk page.  WP:BRD says 'bold, revert, discuss', not bold, revert, edit war, leave cryptic notes in edit summaries'  I believe the objection may be that the other party feels bi means the more limited 'bisexual', but you wouldn't know from that edit summary.  Take it to the talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Perplexed[edit]

You suggested: "Born2cycle is warned to talk less and listen more, to actually think about the views of other editors, and to be prepared to compromise in order to reach an outcome that everyone will accept."
Elen.  Is there anything in particular that you know of that you believe I missed?  I'm not saying I've never missed a single point others have said, but, in general, I sincerely believe I pay much better attention to what others are saying than most, and if you really believe otherwise I'd like to know why.
I also want to know why you think I need to be better prepared to compromise.  In this particular case, I bent over backwards trying to come up with compromise wording, but I really couldn't.  In my defense, nobody else could either, not even those opposed to the Kotniski/B2C/Greg L wording.  Why are you putting this on me?
Just wondering why you're singling me out for this stuff.  I certainly don't see any evidence for it in this case, or outside of it.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a few others of whom the same could be said - Dicklyon for instance. The problem you have is that the findings are based on what is presented in the evidence, and everyone presented evidence about you.....even the ones that support the position you took.  This is a consequence of your interpretations of the consensus and brd policies, something I believe you have more recently amended. The other thing to bear in mind is that I'm not thinking of compromise wording, I'm thinking of a more general compromise on what the aim of the whole thing was.  You (and Dicklyon and GregL) got very obsessed about this minutiae of wording, and it was not easy to persuade any of you to take the step back and look at the overall aim. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was obsessed with the wording?  Where is the evidence for that?
I was obsessed with the refusal of Dicklyon, Noetica and Tony to discuss their objection the wording, coupled with their insistence (manifested with reverts) that it not be applied.  See the difference? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I'm still hoping to get some advice on what I was supposed to do in my situation.  I was following BRD to the best of my ability. I made an edit that I didn't think was bold, but, per BRD, just in case, I simultaneously started a discussion section about it on the talk page, where I explained my edit.  Without reading that, they reverted. So, we were on the D phase, but those who reverted wouldn't discuss.
Discussion is how we're supposed to achieve consensus.  Ask questions.  Find out what the objections are.  Listen to what others are saying.  Try to address their concerns.  But if they refuse to engage no matter what you try (and I tried everything I could think of), what are you supposed to do?  Get admonished for trying as hard as I did?  How does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Drift chambers[edit]


I've received an e-mail from Drift chambers wanting to discuss mentorship, apparently based on this comment from you. I've got my hands full with PhoenixJHudson at the moment, and couldn't consider mentoring Drift chambers, especially since I don't see any particular hope for a positive result in either case. Any suggestions on your part?—Kww(talk) 19:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The Signpost: 12 March 2012[edit]








Is it true?[edit]


What Skinwalker asserts about Dreadstar at 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC) in this ANI thread? If so, what is ArbCom going to do about it? If not, the gossiping should be put to an end with an official statement. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



What happened is..... At some point in 2008 ScienceApologist created his userpage in article space ScienceApologist and it was moved to his userpage. 13 July 2010, Dreadstar must have re-created the page (without undeleting it, I can't see all the logs), with one edit "Before I forget, FUCK you (removed personal name). You're forever in my mind as a supreme asshole." He then deleted the page.  On the 18th July, he went back and revision deleted his own edit.  It's not very edifying.


I was inactive on that case - I was out of town and without computer access for nearly three weeks, as my father in law had a bad fall and was in the hospital, and I didn't get back until after the case concluded - although as you'll see on the main case page, I was the one who persuaded everyone else that they had to open a case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



George Ho[edit]


Hello. I know we have never spoke before but I have concerns about user George Ho. Please do not think that what I am about to say is a personal attack on user George Ho,but is just my opinion. I think that user George Ho is a Troll. All he seems to do are AFD's and other similar things to make editors angry. I have read everything involving user George Ho and I think he is up to no good. Now George Ho has a group of mentors. While I think this is a nice thing,I believe it is wasting the mentors time because he is a troll, posing as someone with Autism. I have read all of the block logs and comments about George Ho and I just cannot believe that people do not see that he is up to no good. I read his block log . When someone asked him a question,or explained something to him,he acts like he doesn't understand the point and does a lot of double talk,or he deflects attention and starts talking about Ip's being Sockpuppets etc. Even when a editor point blank tells him what he has done wrong,he feigns ignorance. I am sorry but if the guy knows about copyright images and protocols,you cant tell me he does not understand when and what he does is wrong when pointed out to him. I just hate to see nice editors taking time to mentor him when I am sure he is just playing a game with them. George Ho also seems to have a personal vendetta against Soap Operas. He actually said this into response of something soap opera related- "I just am doing things on the behalf of common people, like me, who have become too unenthusiastic or too apathetic to care about American soap operas and their entities nowadays." I think user George Ho is just trying to aggravate users on Wikipedia. He is nothing more than a technical smart alek. I am sorry but this is how I feel. Also like I stated earlier, he is smart enough to know about copyright laws and other stuff on Wikipedia but when someone gives him a example of something he does wrong,he will just ask stupid questions. He claims not to understand what Tag bombing is,even when given an example. No one is that Stupid. I am sorry to bother you with this but I hate to see so many nice people,his mentors, wasting time with a Troll.--74.179.215.67 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



(talk page stalker) Since Elen has, I think, not had time to reply here yet, I'll reiterate my invitation to you to participate constructively in discussions about this matter, if you have something useful to add to them, and I'll repeat my request that you take care not to include comments and statements which could be interpreted as personal attacks when discussing other editors. Thanks. Begoon talk 08:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


A course of action?[edit]


Hi Elen. As you had input into the discussion regarding the December 2011 block of Greg_L by 2over0, I wonder if you could have a look at this sequence of recent edits and suggest a course of action? Thank you. GFHandel ♬  20:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The Signpost: 19 March 2012[edit]








I have a personal privacy issue and think that you can help with you clever suppress powers.[edit]


Hello Elen,

I should be mightily grateful if you could help me out.. or let me know where better to look to find help.

A few years ago (2005?) I posted an image which was then removed, no big deal. However, it seems that perhaps I used my email address as my username or something along these lines. So there is now a page at <redacted> which obviously includes an email address... this is mine (you can check by emailing me if you like..)

It is the talk page for a user of the same name. This user does not exist, nor can I create and then delete it - the user name is invalid.

Are you able to delete / suppress this page and this discussion mentioning it for the sake of my privacy?

Thank you kindly in advance,

Roger.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roggg (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] 



You created a user account with that name, and used it to edit for a couple of weeks back in 2006. It's not possible to delete a user account, but it is possible to rename it - see WP:RENAME. You need the bureaucrat tools for that, which I don't have. As you don't want to draw attention to it, I suggest emailing wikien-bureaucrats@lists.wikimedia.org and explaining the problem. You don't need to think up a username - the software will come up with a random code I believe in such instances. I have removed your personal details from the record on this page. Hope this helps.  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. I'll try that - appreciate the help! Roggg (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]







Not for any particular reason; just "because"!  Pesky (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Om nom nom nom nom... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



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


Looks like..[edit]


...we're both clearing RFPP. I'll move to the top of the queue and work down so we don't bump heads. :)  Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 13[edit]


Thank you so much for protecting it. But I'm afraid that isn't the correct version to be displayed.  Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



If you can reach consensus that some different version is the correct version it can be unprotected.  In the meantime, you're lucky you didn't get blocked for edit warring.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Did you go into edit history and find out the fact that some discussions were deleted for no reason? Jeffrey (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting this.  I've locked it to prevent edit warring over an archive. I have no interest in what the right version is, it's just disruptive to edit war over it and makes the project look bad.  Those who have an interest in the content of the archive can work out what the 'right' version is. It's all in the page histories anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


There's at least a reason why you chose to freeze the page with this version but not the another one. This is even more important if you genuinely want to save the page from warring again. Jeffrey (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make a choice. I froze it at whatever version it was at when I handled the protection request.  Please read WP:WRONGVERSION. I have no idea what it says. (add-I have no idea what the archive says, I know perfectly well what wrongversion says)Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Alright if that's the case what you did was simply arbitrary and coincidental. You don't even intend to solve any dispute or to undo any disruptive edits. Jeffrey (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Elen said at the beginning, if you can establish consensus that the current version of the archive is wrong, it can be changed. So far you're the only person who thinks so. It's not Elen's job to determine the 'correct version', consensus does that and right now consensus is against you. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think it's necessary to establish consensus to revert disruptive edits. Jeffrey (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given you've just been blocked for edit warring (read: disruptive editing), I imagine what you believe is disruptive is not consistent with what everyone else believes is disruptive. It might be best to get consensus on that in future. I think we're done here, apologies for hijacking your talk page Elen. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't pick the fights[edit]


[43] if other editors just behaved like rational adults there would be no need for playgrounds like ANI. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Very true, but our own behaviour is the only thing we can ever control. Unless we're the cops. Or something. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy about my behaviour, and I don't take kindly to being treated like a child. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So don't act like one. Simple. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't patronise me Demiurge. You know I think that you're a complete twat, so let's leave it at that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Elen: seriously, is this acceptable dialogue on Wikipedia now? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I have suggested many times that Malleus avoid phrases like "I think", which just dilute the truth. If you can leave a word out, always leave it out, wrote George Orwell, I believe.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Let's make this an opportunity to unhate![edit]







The Fæ classy in crisis LGBT ally Barnstar!




Because we need to show our overwhelming support of what people hate on to create unhate whenever it shows up. I compel everyone that supports unhate to repost this on their user page or talk page and especially on any page that has been the location of LGBT harassment or ignorance, that way the haters will know the only consequence of their hate will be more gayness and education and community.  LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Articles needed[edit]


Thanks for your offer to retrieve deleted articles.  I miss these:



  • The body electric (book by Robert O. Becker)  (It might have been reduced to a sentence before the "merge")


  • PESWiki


I hope History can come along - with e.g. userfication.  OlavN (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history for The Body Electric is still there, see [44].  this is what it looked like at your last edit. If you want the text to create a better article, I can move the whole shebang to your userspace and just create a new redirect (or you can, but no-one will argue if I do it). If you want it for something else, just copy it and credit the 'pedia when you use it.

The entire content of PESwiki before deletion was

PESWiki is a GFDL wiki community-built 'free energy' website focusing on alternative, clean, practical, renewable energy solutions.

== References==




Do with it what you will :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back The Body Electric.  I have now saved my version in a less aggressive wiki, but it would be nice if you could save the full set in my userspace.

PESWiki is a banned topic, meaning that now and then some naive soul writes an article about it, only to experience a speedy deletion.  My version gave a screenful of text, I think.  Can you see that listed?  OlavN (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Ah, it's at PESWiki.  If the topic now has coverage in secondary sources, it might be possible to create an article on the subject.  It's at User talk:OlavN/PESWiki Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


In regards to the Futaba Channel article.[edit]


I'm afraid what you said was true. I did checked the Japanese version of the Wikipedia article, and there are little secondary sources Japanese version of the article. I'm afraid it's the different wiki projects having different rules when it comes to secondary sources. Due to the fact that there is little primary or secondary sources available in English or in the Japanese version of the article to verify the content I've submitted, it's impossible for the English version to pass muster with the English Wikipedia.Jkid4 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I was afraid that might be the case.  It will be difficult to add more content to the article in this case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Xanderliptak[edit]


Keep in mind that everything in his latest essay[45] is either a lie or a substantial spin away from the truth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Yes, it does seem to come from an alternate reality - one where a blocked editor is entitled to create another account, for example :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed he conveniently forgot to mention this shenanigan he pulled at commons,[46] in a successful attempt at getting his own uploads deleted - 14 months ago, not "2 years" ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Please advise[edit]


I have raised a general issue with Xeno at User_talk:Xeno#ARBCOM_endorsed_removal.3F. It is somewhat unusual that 2 Arbs have appeared at my user and talk page is highly unusual. Can you please advise how you came to know about the userpage -- were you contacted by someone? If so, in what forum were you contacted? And by whom? And what the general gist of the conversation? I'm assuming good faith, but I do expect that if you were contacted that you would say so when asked about it. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 15:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Dear Russavia - if someone contacts me privately, it's private. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone contact you about it? Yes or no? You can answer that. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 16:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Elen's talk page is on my watchlist.) Russavia, I don't quite know how that wouldn't be a violation of the confidentiality of a person who e-mailed Elen... AGK [•] 19:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AGK, Elen is completely able to answer the question, whether they were emailed or not. It's a matter of transparency. IT also has to do with motives for Elen's personal attack on myself accusing me of trolling, which I will deal with as well. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 22:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you put that image up because you wanted one of the Polish editors to start an argument about it, so that you could report them to AE. This is based on your actions - you put the image up, and the minute one of the Eastern European editors complained about it, you reported them to AE. I would call that baiting or trolling. This is my opinion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the simple question. Were you contacted privately in relation to this? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 23:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Private is private. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 26 March 2012[edit]








IBAN policy discussion[edit]


Hi. Since you commented at the AE request, in light of User:Timotheus Canens comments there, please see the discussion here [47] (related to my comment here [48]).VolunteerMarek 16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Please start to assume good faith[edit]


My statement on the issues have still yet to be made and you are already passing judgement on me. Did you know that I am being harassed, both by onwiki characters? And also by offwiki characters? And that there is one common denominator in the lot? Do you want to know more? You can contact me privately. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 11:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



You posted the thing on your userpage, and my opinion of it is based solely on looking at it. And you would have to be Forrest Gump not to expect it to provoke the reaction it received.  And even if you really are Mr Gump, restoring the wretched thing after it was removed hardly creates an impression of an innocent party simply out to amuse. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my statement, because you have it all wrong. Also, Xeno did not attempt to engage in discussion, he simply removed it, based upon his own opinion. Please read my statement. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


User_talk:Xeno#ARBCOM_endorsed_removal.3F -- here is Xeno's confirmation that he was not acting in an Arb role, so in this instance he is just another editor. As are you? Or is this an issue that has been brought to the attention of the Arbcom as a collective group? Your response appreciated. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 13:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


First, it's offensive because it refers to Polish editors as vandals, but now you are saying it is offensive because it refers to Polish editors as sockpuppets. Which is it? OK, if the sockpuppets are removed (had to replace the Hussar wings with something), are you saying that you wouldn't find that one cartoon offensive at all? Remembering of course there is a Russian cartoon too. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 13:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Interaction bans[edit]









collapsing - you can argue about the virtues of your mothers elsewhere






Thank you for your observation on interaction bans. Interaction bans should be regarding editors addressing other editors in article talk, editors contacting other editor on their respective talk pages, editors discussing other editors in the third person. The idea that an interaction ban prevents A from commenting on CONTENT that happens to be created by B is preposterous and grants sole WP:OWNership to the first editor that comes along, which is an OPEN INVITATION TO FOMENT CONFLICT.
As for the offensive Wikipedia-specific graphic posted by Greyhood, given his Russophile (which I do not begrudge or denigrate in any manner) sphere of editing, it is an affront to all those editors on Wikipedia who are of Eastern European and Baltic heritage. We have zero tolerance for homophobia and anti-Semitism, but apparently one can insult "Polacks" and all Eastern Europeans by extension (given the well known conflict between Russia and EE and the rest of the planet on the Soviet legacy--a conflict played out on a daily basis on Wikipedia) with complete impunity. This has been going on for years and must be put to an emphatic end. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba, while I respect you as a knowledgeable and generally polite and constructive editor, I have noticed long ago that too often you simply seek to get offended at something, even at the things which have no any relation to you. How does "Baltic heritage" is relevant here at all? As for the Eastern European heritage - that's obviously too broad a thing (that may include Russia and South Slavs) and it is extremely strange to claim that anything here "can insult.. all Eastern Europeans by extension". As for the Polish heritage, please note that Poles reacted to this cartoon in much more calm way and some even did like it -  apparently they are simply better aware of the Polandball meme and find it not wise to angrily react at the humor involving national stereotypes.


Then, you should know, that the cartoon was created by me alone and I did not consult with Russavia while making it. And while making it, I had no single thought about actual Polish editors on Wikipedia. I simply had a task to create a cartoon illustrating the meme, but also to make something new and not entirely repeating the scenarios of the existing Polandball cartoons. Wikipedia humor was an obvious idea - and then Polandball just assumed its typical role, a character and a persona which one would be very wrong (and lacking a sense of humor and irony) to consider the same thing as the Polish nation or particular Polish editors. Later I might go and explain in detail how I created the cartoon - that might be interesting read.


Finally, really strange to hear these complaints from you, who apparently liked Putin on the Ritz. Even more strange was to read your suggestion that if you started mocking Putin on your userpage, the Russians would rush to complain about it. Not really - firstly, I must admit a part of Russians really do not like Putin, and secondly, as far as I know, Russians, with many of their faults, at least tend to have a well developed sense of irony. The same goes for the Russophile editors (though this term is not entirely correct on my part) - note that Russavia not only created Putin on the Ritz, but voted keep for this much more mocking satire on Putin. At the same time I suported keeping Putin on the Ritz and have no particular objections against Putin in bra too. Valid satire is valid, and no point censoring it - this is not the same as adding incorrect or undue information to the articles. GreyHood Talk 15:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I want additionally emphasize it to Elen - Russavia is not related to the creation of the "Poland can into Wikipedia" cartoon in any way, except for his creation of the Polandball article, which I became aware of and tried to make an illustration for. And currently I have about half a dozen more cartoons in making, all satirizing the performance of other countryballs in Wikipedia, without no any Polandball there. The cartoon about Russia in Wikipedia (with a bit of Polandball though) is already uploaded. GreyHood Talk 15:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhood, my position is simple.  There has long been a consensus that editors may maintain on their userpage what one might term political content, including political satire, support for political parties and comments about political situations, including contentious ones. However, this does not include comments about groups of Wikipedians. Such comments are very likely to run into problems if they are derogatory or satirical, and quite likely to do so even if the author thinks they are not offensive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, with all due respect, this is your personal opinion. I am certain that many others may hold a different opinion -- and I know that they do. Please read my statement, and please comment, feel free to do so here, or on my talk page, and put this in context of "The Plague" essays which also make such comments about groups of Wikipedians, albeit in a serious manner. How is the premise of the satire any different to the direct point of a serious essay? In fact, the satire should be embraced more than the serious essay, given that it is not to be taken seriously. Wouldn't you agree? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented. The fact that you do not like my comments does not alter their existence. While my opinion of the cartoon is personal, the observation that the community tends to not support attacks on specified groups of Wikipedians (Poles, gays, black editors, women etc) is I believe factual. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia makes a valid observation, because both his Polandball article and my cartoon gained support from a number of editors, even if in the case of the article a number of editors opposed it (but more on the ground of whether sourcing is enough). While I see your point on the inappropriateness of attacks on user pages, I want to make another obvious point: before speaking of an attack it should be made clear whether there was any attack at all, or perhaps there was nothing more than a satire and a valid Wikipedia humor. Of course humor is subjective and a joke rarely could be found funny by each and every person. But I suppose that when a noticeable number of people find the humor OK, and when there are tons of humor and often very contentious satire on Wikipedia, and when we have no rules prescribing which satire is OK and which is not, it is wrong to accuse a person trying to make a joke in attack. GreyHood Talk 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken in ascribing support to the cartoon that was on Russavia's userpage. Which is the one at issue here.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I understand Russavia has shown the images to a number of editors including Poles and they found it OK. Also, I want to ask you few questions - if it was not Russavia, but another user, say me, placing the image on my user page - would it really be found problematic? If from the very beginning I placed on my userpage the satirical "Russiaball" in Wikipedia cartoon - would that be OK? GreyHood Talk 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything relating to a topic under eastern european sanctions is likely to be problematic.  Anything relating to Ireland and the Troubles is likely to be problematic. Anything relating to the middle east is likely to be problematic.  Anything relating to Japan/Korea is likely to be problematic - particularly if it mentions Liancourt or Senkaku. Anything relation to the Gibraltarians attitude to Spain is likely to be problematic...... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but Wikipedia is not censored and these problematic topics are still allowed. Wikipedia articles, talk pages and userpages often contain tons of potentially offensive stuff which is not meant to be offensive by the creators of this stuff. My questions remain unanswered.. GreyHood Talk 00:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia articles are not censored. Important distinctions. Editors are not allowed to put up attack pages about other editors and argue for their inclusion because wikipedia is not censored.  Jeez - how many more specious arguments are you two gonna come up with.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an argument but an obvious answer to the obvious point made by you - yet the point which did not directly answer my questions. By speaking of the inappropriateness of attack pages - another obvious point which I agree with - we return to the same thing again: how could we confidently speak about an "attack page" when for sure no any user was directly was pointed at, when the image was not found problematic by a number of people and when we deal with humor which you yourself admitted was funny? Also, this is all rather confusing for me because all current discussions lead me to a suggestion that similar kind of humor seems appropriate for other countries but not for Poland (remembering that in fact we are dealing with satirical stereotypes here, not actual countries), or perhaps even to a suggestion that similar kind of humor might be more appropriate for other users but not for Russavia, who found himself involved in too many conflicts in the past and lately, with too many editors having a grudge against him... I want to understand which things are allowed and which are not, that's important for me and that's why I ask all these questions to you. GreyHood Talk 02:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyhood. You asked: "the satirical "Russiaball" in Wikipedia cartoon - would that be OK?". No, as I already tried to explain, this "Russiaball" cartoon seems to offensive for a Russian user like myself. And I do not see anything funny about this cartoon. Of course I would be happy to tell you a couple of recent funny jokes about Putin from a presentation by a Russian satirist, but this is not right place. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes. You said that you are "culturally Russian user". This is a big difference. And Shenderovich (which I was a fan of in the past, before he became more boring) unfortunately is no more very popular among the general Russian public (in Russia I mean, but not among the Russian emigrants perhaps). In fact he has become a great deal unpopular, and this has nothing to do with his jokes about Putin. I could tell you why so but this is not right place. GreyHood Talk 13:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, by the way, @My very best wishes, after looking at your userpage (Biophysics, love for wikiessays, being watched by "Big Brother", Russian language), and after seeing the coincidence of the start of your active contributions with the end of contributions by Biophys, and seeing your similar edits at Edvard Radzinsky article, and similar political preferences, and a late 1980s-ish and 1990s-ish cultural background, and continued involvement in issues related to Russavia, no questions are left about your identity. GreyHood Talk 14:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyhood. I made a redirect for the sake of transparency. But honestly, I do not understand what do you mean by calling me "non-Russian" here and elsewhere? Genes? I have them. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care about genes. For me, for example, Tatars and Yakuts are also Russians in the national sense. I mean being a Russian national. And, specifically, my point about the point made by you is that it is important being up-to-date with modern Russian culture and public opinion. GreyHood Talk 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]




AE case[edit]


I left a response.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



There were six diffs cited as directly related, not just two. I have clarified a few things on the AE case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


User talk:DegenFarang[edit]


I've proposed some unblock conditions. No idea if he will agree to them or not, just letting you know. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Talkback[edit]


Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at  UtherSRG's talk page.
Message added 03:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]


UtherSRG (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Pattern of Unconstructive Edits[edit]


Greetings:  Please take a look at this User's account contributions.  He has a pattern of getting an fixed idea and then changing a bunch of pages to suit.  Previously, he's added categories about cities with Hispanic majorities, which he tacked onto cities that don't even have many Hispanics and a category (I think now deleted) was added to various big box stores.  Now he has created a Category:Big Cities which someone else has marked for speedy deletion.  The last time I reverted one of his edits  he blanked my user page and left a threat instead, so I have no desire to correct his edits nor deal with him again.  I noticed because one of his "Big Cities" was Eureka, California which certainly isn't big, but User:Norcalal fixed that one.  Thank you for your attention to this continuing problem. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Talkback[edit]


Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leidseplein.
Message added 08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Looking for a follow up :) Thanks.  -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)  08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Confession of Mar4d[edit]


I was looking through this IP's edits and I found a confession.  Could you please comment on this at the investigation page.  Kind regards. --67.212.88.26 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



ANKMALI (talk · contribs)[edit]


Hate to bother you, but as I pointed out in the ANI thread I see some similarity between ANKMALI and a banned user, Dr.Mukesh111 (specifically, do an archive search for User:Wings spread).  Given the last SPI on Mukesh was in October, is a CU going to turn anything up?  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The checkuser tool can only access 90 days worth of edits, and Wings spread last edited in 2010.  The last recorded sock of Mukesh111 edited October 2011.  Based on the limited information available (the IPs reported in the sockpuppet investigation) ANKMALI is on the right subcontinent, but that's as far as it goes. If you think there's a behavioural link, block them and record it at SPI. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK.  Wasn't sure if someone had nailed a few of their own accord outside of SPI; it was worth a try.  I'll talk to User:Shshsh and see what he thinks; he'd know better than anyone.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Arbitration filed[edit]


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:Rich Farmbrough and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—




Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Sian O'Callaghan (2nd nomination)[edit]


You closed this AFD, so please add to top of the talk page of the article an explanation of the outcome of the AFD. That is the usual practice. Thanks. Edison (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Will do.  Sorry, it was fairly late here and my main concern was the process issue. I probably need to do all the other clerking as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Could you please email me the last version of the article in wiki markup format. I have a HTML version, but it can no longer be restored or edited. I do not think the version by User:Ianmacm is acceptable, because it leaves out just the wrong details. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Check your email. I do believe it is the two murders, and the suggestion that he identified the locations of both bodies, that the police are anxious to keep off the radar.  Although this is the internet - it is all out there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, exactly – although I would not say it here either. And thank's. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency[edit]


On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia#Comment_from_AGK, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.

AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.

As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.

AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.

In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:



  1. Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
    2. 

  2. If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
    3. 

  3. If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?


These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.

The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The Signpost: 02 April 2012[edit]








User talk:Snowlocust[edit]


Thanks for your input there. --John (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Glad I could help.  Hopefully Snowlocust will take the advice offered and have a better editing experience from here on in. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Is this meat puppetry?[edit]


Hello,  I want to know if the following is meatpuppetry:

I will not use editors usernames as I just want information and not intervention (I will call the editors involved A, B, C for ease of narrative).

Editor_A removed information that was on an article for citing IMDb and an official forum as reference for user reaction to a tv show. I restored the information on good faith as I considered the context of the sourcing was correct.

Editor_A  posts a message on my talk page threatening to accuse me with vandalism at 13:59   

I am ok with his removal of the information of the article if he considers it reasonable. 
The  issue is that at nearly the same time Two other editors that never worked in the article make edits:

At 13:40 Editor_B undoes my edit (not the same editor that put the warning on my page). 

Also at 14:08  Editor_C posts on the article's talk page linking on my revert and saying "That's no way to build and encyclopedia" (I  consider it impolite and uncecessary to call on me like this on the article's talk page.)

Is this meatpupetry?  As as mentioned Editor B and C never worked on the article or similar articles before.  I consider this and their edits being only minutes apart suspicious.

Thanks for your time and counseling, Charles Dayton (Talk) 15:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry for taking from your time, I decided to ask you, as I highly value your work as a Wikipedia Mod and your quick work removing a vandal I reported January.Charles Dayton (Talk) 15:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Will take a look, but have to go pick up my daughter who is coming to dinner :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


No, it's not meatpuppetry. Platinum Star could do with being a bit less of a grump. Uzma Gamal is trying to explain why he doesn't think the source is any good, but he's a new user as well. I know Orange Mike. If someone told him to go do something to an article, he'd probably do the opposite - knows his own mind.  What you could do is start a conversation with Uzma Gamal about when IMDB is allowed and when it's not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a million Elen.   Can you point me to information I could use to inform Uzma Gamal on when it is appropriate to quote IMDB? (Some official wikipedia information or comments by moderators)   If I just explain when it appropriate he or Platinum Star will probably post the same information again.  I know IMDB ratings are an average of hundreds of reviews from registered users and that no single person can edit it as Uzma says.Charles Dayton (Talk) 17:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked here] for some input from WikiProject Soap Operas. Do chip in. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks![edit]


Not sure if this is standard procedure but thanks a lot for your help and advice on my talk page :) Snowlocust (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



You're welcome.  I'm away for a couple of days now (heading for Glasgow) but do ask if you have any more queries. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


New Arbcom Case[edit]


An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 18, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero | My Talk 19:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Dispute resolution survey[edit]








Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite





Hello Elen of the Roads. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.

Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.





You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]





Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]


Hi. When you recently edited Christ of Saint John of the Cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ •  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Please respond[edit]


Could you please respond my post, in which I mentioned you directly. While responding, could you please provide specific details and publish all emails and other communications between members of the Committee concerning this case? If for some reason these emails cannot be published, could you please provide the exact reasons why not? The most important thing I'd like to get a response for is why Mbz1 was not notified that the Committee was considering blocking her. Also could you please specify how each arbitrator voted? Thanks. Broccolo (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



No.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How disappointing! As an alternative, Broccolo, and in a parallel spirit of openness, would you agree to my publishing the two emails that Mbz1 sent you on 20th December 2010? Admittedly that's a long time ago, so I'll jog your memory - they were about a DYK nomination of hers.


If you want arbcom to do everything in the open, maybe you should too? ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the sockpuppet investigation of the user Amarru[edit]


Hello Elen of the Roads

I saw your conclusion on the sockpuppet investigation regarding the user Amarru in this thread;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DBSSURFER

I would just add that I was referring to the user Seaboy123 who turned out to be a sockpuppet of the blocked user DBSSURFER. I am convinced based on evidence such as style of editing, editing the same data and similar writing style/behaviour that the user Amarru is identical to Seaboy123 alias DBSSURFER.

I have also reason to believe that this user is the responsible for writing death threats on my talk page. 

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



  • Amarru is not Seaboy123. Not unless he's capable of being on two continents at once. That's why I'm saying it's not worth pursuing this sock business with Amarru, because technically it's an immediate no.  Seaboy123 may be pursuing you with socks issuing death threats, but Amarru is not one of them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Elen Thank You[edit]


You believed in me when no one else did.  Thank you so much for that.  I was ready to quit Wiki over it.  You have restored my faith in Wikipedia.

You are everything an Administator should be and much more.  Not because you took my side but because you cared enough to be thorough enough and TO CHECK.   Once again, thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I'm touched. Thank you.  I figured there had to be an explanation somewhere - it didn't seem at all likely that you'd made the story up, and it was obviously upsetting for you, so I just did a little digging. I hope you'll continue to enjoy editing articles on the Mayflower pilgrims whatever they end up being called. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost[edit]


Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



More Glkanter[edit]


Hi - He's posting under another IP, see [49] and [50].  I'd block him myself, but since I'm involved I'm not sure that would be a good idea (let me know if you think otherwise).  I'm trying to advance a solution and my guess is he'll get more and more disruptive if this solution progresses at all.  -- Rick Block (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



You could be right about the disruption :(   I'm not sure how blocking these disruptive IPs would be viewed, but do feel free to keep pinging me (or any other admin of your choice). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might benefit the project if someone peaked in on the MHP in order to see that the ArbCom sanctions have had no affect on the arguments put forth by Rick Block or Nijdam. Rick Block continues to conjure interpretations of reliable sources that are implausable to every other editor, while Nijdam simply continues to ignore all policies regarding reliable sources. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Do you conclude from the above that 76.190.228.162 is also Glkanter?  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It's Glkanter.[51] Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glkanter --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Signpost question[edit]


Hi Elen! I write for the Signpost and I'm working on a series analyzing the work of the Arbitration Committee (a recent story here). Would you be free to answer some questions regarding your work on the Committee, and specifically the ins and outs of the committee mailing list? I see you're a member of the incoming mail team for the committee, and I'm interested in some organizational details. For example:



  • Are PD assignments made on the list
    • 

  • How much discussion about a decision, pre-PD draft, is there


If you would be willing, please ping my talk page. I'd be glad to post questions here or via email, whichever you prefer. Best regards!  Lord Roem (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my questions. Feel free to answer either here or via email. You may go in-depth as you prefer, but understand I'm probably going to take some snippets for the article, rather than posting the entirety of your response.



Making a start. May take a couple of days to finish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • 1. On the Committee itself, once a case is accepted, how are the drafters for the PD chosen? Is this done via the mailing list, and if so, do members 'vie' or request to draft a specific case? Is selection basically random?


  • People nominate themselves dependent on availability and how long it is since they last did it. It's ages since I've drafted because every time I've been down to do it, some problem has come up.


  • 2. During a case, how much internal discussion usually occurs via the mailing list? In your experience, do drafters tend to find consensus early on or does conversation fire up after the posting of a proposed decision?







  • 3. When you first joined the Committee, what was your biggest shock or insight you gained through participating in cases? What surprised you?
    • 

  • 4. Generally, how much ArbCom mail do you receive? I've heard its crazy, just how so?
    • 

  • 5. AGK and other new arbitrators replied in their recent interviews that conversation is more frank and open on the mailing list. Do you find discussions to be calm? Are their occasional heated arguments?
    • 

  • 6. What is your view on moving ArbCom business into the public-eye? More specifically, do you feel there is too much work done on the mailing list that could be put on the Wiki proper? Whatever your feelings are, I'm curious to know your general feel on how the private mailing list functions via a goal of transparency.


I appreciate your willingness to help with the story. It is currently slated for May 7th. Until then, I am open to answer any questions about the article as the draft is drawn up. Best wishes, Lord Roem (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Ping, gentle reminder  Lord Roem (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 09 April 2012[edit]








Help[edit]

Hi Elen.  Back in December, after it was brought to my attention that the responsibility criterion wording at WP:AT was being misinterpreted due to an inadvertent change made to it months before,  I made an edit restoring the  original wording, I explained the edit, and was never-the-less reverted, yet nobody ever explained why they objected to the edit itself, or even addressed my explanation for making it.  Over a month of discussion ensued, almost entirely about peripheral issues, until finally Greg L figured out what was going on, created a poll to focus on the specific change, and the community indicated it unanimously supported my original edit.  It was incredibly disruptive and could have all been avoided if the unexplained revert to my edit was never tolerated in the first place.
Now we have a very similar situation.  Again because of a dispute, it was brought to my attention that the use of the word "unambiguous" is being interpreted in a more general sense than intended.  That is, in several places, but not at every use, at WP:AT and WP:D, its meaning is clarified to be specific to the WP name space.  But some people are quoting the sections where it's not clarified, and using a more general interpretation.  So I edited the policy to consistently clarify the meaning in the same manner as where it is already clarified.  I explained this in my edit summaries and on the talk page, but, again, was never-the-less reverted.  And, also again, nobody is explaining what the objection is to the actual edit, because, just as was the case with responsibility, there is no reason to object. In many ways this is situation is even more obvious.  Anyway, I'm getting sucked into trying to defend myself, and it's not getting me anywhere, again.
I feel it is very disruptive to revert and oppose an edit because of who made it, rather than because of any good reason to object to the actual edit.  Anyway, if you have any suggestion on how to better deal with this type of disruption, I would appreciate it.
Thanks, --Born2cycle (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Glkanter's indefinite ban[edit]


Over a year ago you banned Glkanter indefinitely for some remark that he made in the Monty Hall Problem case.  The other editors who were sanctioned have now been allowed back, is there any reason that Glkanter cannot come back?

He does tend to support my position on the MHP but that is not the reason that I am suggesting this, it is just a general sense of fair play.  A permanent ban for a remark made in the heat of the moment seems a bit steep to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



You don't seem to be operating in the same reality as the rest of us Martin. If you did your research, you would find that I took the unusual step of blocking Glkanter indefinitely prior to the case concluding, for continuing to attack other editors in every available forum, in multiple, lengthy, abusive posts (not for one intemperate remark). The Arbitration Committee (not me) then voted to site ban Glkanter for one year and topic ban him indefinitely from the topic of the Monty Hall problem.  The block was taken over by the Arb clerks to enforce the site ban. Since then, Glkanter has continued to edit with socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glkanter) who routinely post abuse of Rick Block - which was what got him blocked in the first place. As a consequence, he remains blocked. Should he wish to appeal to have the block lifted, the standard offer would probably be made - and he would have to avoid socking for six months. He would also have to address the behaviour that he continues to repeat. And after all that, he will still be topic banned from Monty Hall. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


There is a significant difference between a fact-based response to a reasonable question, and the exaggerated screed you posted, above. Glkanter's alleged "Personal Attacks" are less abusive than your personal attack on Martin Hogbin's grasp of reality.


Describing Glkanter's alleged "Personal Attacks" as "lengthy, abusive" is not supportable by any diffs. Glkanter posted factual statements regarding his ArbCom hearing. A hearing only neccesitated by Rick Block taking offense to Glkanter's complaints of Ownership violations against him. Those complaints were confirmed by the vote of the Arbcom. Why is there no expectation of contrition from Rick Block? Meanwhile, he perpetuates his continuing Ownership violations using his same tried-and-true disruptive editing methods. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go away, you're blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more that I can say now?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not after the IPs comments, no I don't think so. If you were in contact with Glkanter and could somehow persuade him to completely change his approach, but then it is a truism that one cannot change others, only one's self. Incidentally, I do apologise if the 'different reality' comment came across as 'you're nuts' or any such. What I was thinking was that you always very much viewed the Monty Hall kerfuffle as an academic problem, and never really did regard Glkanter as a problem editor, even after he "went postal" (to borrow the US phrase). If Glkanter would return to his account, and agree to stop socking to repeat personal attacks, that would be a start, but the standard offer would require six months without socking.  Then I expect he would have to edit in other areas without butting heads or repeating his attacks on Rick Block, before he could contemplate asking for the Tban to be lifted. As he never edited any article other than Monty Hall, I don't know if he would go for this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'different reality' comment shows how easy it is for an editor who is trying to make a valid point to write something that might be interpreted as a personal attack.  I felt that some of Glkanter's comments were only trying to remind us of the Arbcom finding that Rick was exhibiting a degree of page ownership.  However, this is now a lost cause and I will say no more on the subject. I do not believe that I can have any significant influence on Glkanter's editing here.


There is another area where my grasp of reality may be lacking though. The decision that various IPs were sockpuppets of Glkanter seems to have been quickly made on the basis of timing and  similarity of viewpoint, content and editing style, there is no significant technical evidence, in fact no agreement that the IP is SP on that page at all.  You have asserted that  this SPI has been treated the same way. Is there some aspect of reality that I am missing here?  The admin concerned was the same, but they were actually involved in the related article.  There is technical evidence that both editors were from the same town in Australia and there was a very clearly expounded case by Colinbcn, which was not even mentioned by the admin at all.  Nevertheless ?oygul was able to comment freely throughout the Arbcom case, the subsequent naming discussion, and even influence the final decision.  What am I missing? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


 The key question is always "is it the same chap." Checkuser catches the stupid ones that just edit anonymously or create another account without doing anything technical. Sometimes they repeat the identical edits and expect to be taken for someone different. In my experience of whacking socks, a continued stream of posts from IPs or throwaway accounts about one specific incident and the injustice done to one editor by another editor are always socks - because basically only the person who was affected cares enough to keep this up.  I see this pattern at work as well - an individual becomes obsessed with some real or perceived injustice, and keeps trying new ways to contest decisions that can in some cases be very old (I've seen someone keep up a complaint for 30 years over 6 months worth of local tax payments). So in the case of the IPs, the possibility that anyone else would keep on making posts like this is vanishingly small. Even the joe jobs would only do it once.

In your other case, while you would have to ask the admins who made the decision for a full account of their thoughts, the following might come into play:-



  • Technically, the CU could tell that they were different ISPs on different machines. Not just different IPs from the same provider. It does get a bit black magic at this point - are they editing at different times of day, is one a company account, is one of the addresses a proxy, are they definitely different machines.
    • 

  • Tnxman would only flag it as "possible" - which in checkuser terms means "it's not technically ruled out" (eg they're not editing simultaneously in Poland and Ethiopia). It also means that the checkuser is saying "you'll have to work this one out on the editing"


So then, looking at the editing



  • The editors hold the same opinion, but don't make identical edits.
    • 

  • Checkuser puts them in the same big city, so how likely is it that there are two people in that city who hold that opinion and edit Wikipedia in that area.
    • 

  • The editors don't edit the same articles other than on this one topic. That may make it more likely that they are different people.
    • 

  • In fact, one editor was a definite SPA, never edited outside the topic. The other editor covers ground in various environmental topics, and has even taken part in discussion about templates. Again, nudges it into a likelihood that its two people. SPAs rarely manage to edit outside their area of single purpose.
    • 

  • Sydney Bluegum had a sharp temper and was given to personal attacks. Does ?oygul have this habit.
    • 

  • Has ?oygul at any point referred to the arbcom decision where Sydney was concerned?


For what it's worth, I do think that Hello Annoying should not have closed. His role was as the SPI clerk - he should probably have waited for more comment from passing admins. That said, I think I would have said that there wasn't enough to warrant a finding. But I would have recommended observing ?oygul's editing, as discretionary sanctions are available if they became problematic in the way that SB's did. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Elen of the Roads, Elonka, asked Martin to stop with these socking comments about me on the 28 March 2012, she also reassured Martin she is closely watching my editing [52]. I feel Martin just wants to find a way to have me banned as I have a different POV than him at tree shaping. ?oygul (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Elen, your points are all very reasonable and quite similar to these originally raised by Colin bcn, but where is the discussion of any of them in the SPI?  Was there some private discussion or just none at all?


You agree that HelloAnnyong should not have closed.  Is there anything that can be done about this?  I think that the points that you and Colin raised could be quite revealing if investigated properly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Why do I care?[edit]


Apart from being a keen gardener, I have no interest in arborsculpture at all, in fact I do not even like the art much and I care still less what the subject gets called.  I have no connection whatever with any of the COI editors or with any other person who has edited the page.  I only looked as the subject as a result of an RfC.

My worry is this: if a particular name (whatever that may be) for the art becomes established in WP as the correct name in a manner not consistent with the aims and objects of WP, it may eventually move into general use outside WP, due to the influence and authority that WP has. This will then confirm its position in WP.  This sets a precedent for more serious commercial manipulation.  If it is discovered that all you need to do to get your company, product, or opinion into WP permanently is to put in WP and hold it there for a long enough time for it to become established, there is likely to be an increase in commercial interference from larger and more powerful corporations.  Maybe I should not worry about this, but I do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Martin, I understand your concern. Spam editing in general is very bad for the project. But you've got to stop making these allegations. The SPI didn't find a sock, I don't think he's a sock. If you keep it up, you could find yourself subject to discretionary sanctions in the topic area, which would not be a good outcome for you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Elonka's talk page circa Oct 2011, where Martin exhibited a serious case of IDHT which resulted in me warning him off Elonka's page as bordering on harassment. Now I see he's forum shopping as well? Give it a rest, Martin. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Looks like I have to shut up, or risk jail.  But I am shocked, I thought disputes on WP were to be settled by civil discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if the dispute has been settled, and one user never accepts the outcome, they can become a "vexatious litigant" (like my guy who spent 30 years arguing about six months local taxes). You don't want to do that if you can avoid it. No-one but you thinks ?oygul is a sock. SB was topic banned because his editing was problematic - he had some personal thing going about Richard Reames. If ?oygul is editing in a disruptive fashion the way that Bluegum did, then discretionary sanctions are available to deal with it.  But you have to focus on his current editing, not on endlessly arguing that he is a sock when no-one else agrees. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would make up your mind whether we are allowed to discuss this topic or not.  I had just accepted that I was forbidden from discussing this topic under threat of sanctions when you give me a long reply talking about the subject which must not be mentioned.


You talk as if there has been some kind of hearing in which ?oygul has been found innocent of SP, but there has been no such thing, no judge, no jury, no consensus of editors, no discussion, just the closing of the case by an admin who had been involved in the dispute.  Are you telling me that this is how WP is meant to work?  There are plenty of people who share my opinion but they are mere editors, it was Colinbcn who put the case. The others have long since left the page fearing sanctions if they say the wrong thing.


I have to quit now  as I know when I am beaten.  It is not a fair argument when one of the participants has complete power to silence the other. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is ?oygul editing badly. If he is, then file a report at WP:AE. If he isn't, then as I recently had occasion to quote to someone else, see [[53]]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think ?oygul is SB who are connected with Blackash. ?oygul also has a thing with Richard Reames.Diff[54] Slowart (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


User:Pass a Method edit warring across articles and wrongly templating editors[edit]


Ms. Elen of the Roads, would you have a look at User talk:Pass a Method#False templates and especially the section right below it? Pass a Method has a habit of doing this and it seems he will not stop. Of course he removed my statement about how ridiculous he was in issuing warnings to User:000peter,[55] but that's no surprise. Just read how 000peter felt, as expressed on Pass a Method's talk page and his own.[56] Pass a Method seriously needs to stop this crap. It's nothing but an attempt at intimidation. An attempt which apparently worked this time. 216.119.153.205 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



User:Swag Kings[edit]


Thought you might be the one to ask about this... the above page appears to be a minor disclosing personal info. Anything specific to do about it? Calabe1992 00:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Two issues[edit]


Right now, I've been reported for "spamming" WP:RFPP and double-redirecting. See WP:ANI#User:George_Ho.

Also, JHunterJ is somehow mocking me and treating WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as absolute in Talk:Loving You (disambiguation), Talk:It's Great to Be Alive, and Talk:Firestarter (disambiguation). --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The ANI agreed that these matters may be discussed in, preferably, my talk page. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Check user?[edit]


Hi Elen of the Roads,  would you be able to do a check on the ip User:68.107.141.42 [here].  The edits seem very similar to me to those of User:Pmanderson and started soon after that user was blocked.--Kevmin § 06:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Not convinced. This guy seems to be a botanist, or some other form of natural scientist. Where he's correcting words it's to scientific usage. Also the IP doesn't look like anything associated with PMA Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not a problem, Thanks!--Kevmin § 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


User:AnotherWeeWilly[edit]


Appears to be an obvious sock, not even hiding it.  I've added it at [57] and figured since you just handled the other sock, User:LHirsig, it would be a quick and easy decision as it is likely fresh on your mind.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I think all the real CUs must be on holiday :)  That's three baskets of sox I've cleared out over this weekend. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now he is replying on my talk page as an IP, but I don't see the point in reporting it as long as he is not actually editing, via WP:DENY. The last couple of weeks have been thin with admins.  I've tried to fill in some gaps at ANI where appropriate.  I'm always around, just haven't decided if trying RfA is in my best interest. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Go for it. If they'll let me in.... :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still need a little more experience in dispute resolution and researching cases, which is why I'm working ANI a fair amount while I consider it.  I've been here over 5 years, 17k edits, and much mellower now than in 2006, so I figure I there is at least a reasonable chance I would get the mop.  I hear you first have to sign over your soul, join the secret Cabal, and something about ritualistic sacrificing of a goat or cow, I forget which, so I'm not sure that is the direction I want my Wikicareer to go in yet. ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Could I ask a favor?  Semi-protect my user/talk pages for a week?  I could go through the slow, regular channels, but you know the situation, and I think DENY indicates this would be the best way to deal with the situation. A look at my talk history makes the case obvious, rotating IPs from the same sock. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • As soon as I asked you here he stopped reverting my talk page.  And if I do decide to go to RfA, I'm going to hold you to your ANI comment, and make you be one of the nominators ;) No way I'm going in there without a posse.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I semi'd the page anyway (at least I hope I did). Be happy to nominate you if you decide to go for it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


File:Roberto Manzin.png[edit]


This image is a television screenshot obviously, but it is tagged as free to share in Commons. Can I tag it as "no permission"? --George Ho (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



How do you know it's a tv screenshot, not an image he took on his mobile phone while at the concert? If you're absolutely sure it's a still from a tv programme, then obviously you should tag it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost[edit]


Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Glkanter[edit]


Glkanter still riding the same old hobbyhorse.[58] Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glkanter. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



It's peculiar that despite watching the MHP so closely, you never post, "Rick Block, still riding the same old hobbyhorse." When he so obviousy is, and the article remains under ArbCom watch. Why is that? 76.190.228.162 (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's not the one posting anonymous attacks all over the project. Go away, you're barred. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no "personal attacks", nor have there been any postings "all over the project". 76.190.228.162 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom found (passed on a 12 to 0 vote) that you have engaged in tendentious editing and poor conduct, and your repeated sockpuppetry and referring to yourself in the third person to advance the deception is more evidence that you are not willing to follow the rules that the rest of us -- including Rick Block -- follow. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of Rick Block's 'rule following' suggests a willful suspension of disbelief on your part. ArbCom found Rick Block engaged in a long established Ownership violation of the MHP, which he has very obviously resumed, without remorse. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the part where arbcom told him not to do that any more and then monitored his behavior for a year, with a promise of further sanctions if any admin saw any further violations. Contrast this with your case, where you continue to blatantly violate Wikipedia's rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to his conduct since the 12 months has ended, when also-sanctioned-editor Nijdam's sanctioning ended. Both of their editing conduct since then is identical to that which earned them their sanctions in Glkanter's ArbCom case. You don't see that? You don't see the incredulous comments from other editors? Then you're not looking. An Ownership violation is insidious, does *not* require an adversary to perpetrate (unlike Edit Warring), and is unfair and cruel to those editing in good faith. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I don't see it. And, it seems, neither does anyone else but you. Have you ever considered the possibility that you aren't special?  That it isn't the case that you are right and everybody else is wrong? That the rules do apply to you?  I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you ever considered the possibility that you aren't special?  That it isn't the case that you are right and everybody else is wrong? That the rules do apply to you?  I'm just saying." - Guy Macon


Those are essentially the same words and sentiment every admin said to Glkanter, right up until the ArbCom rulings of Ownership against Rick Block and Lack of Good Faith against Nijdam. So it's not much of an argument in the case of Rick Block and Nijdam.


Of course, you claimed proudly to never having read the MHP reliable sources, so how could you know that the lengthy and repetitive arguments put forth By Rick Block and Nijdam violate NPOV, Undue Weight, and OR, Guy Macon? 76.190.228.162 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Glkanter, you are once again confusing content with conduct.  You have consistently maintained that because (you think that) you are right about content issues that this excuses your conduct. This is just an extension of that same error: you think that no one can properly evaluate Rick's behavior without first figuring out his position on content.


You never answered my question about whether you have ever considered the possibility that you aren't special  and that the rules do apply to you. If, as you claim, every admin said that to you (odd that a supposedly non-Glkanter IP address has such a deep familiarity with what was and was not said to Glkanter over a year ago), could it be that they were right? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It is you, Guy Macon, who is ignoring facts and relevant questions. Have you read the recently discussed, or any, MHP reliable sources? How then, can you state with such certainty any opinion regarding content?


Rick Block and Nijdam were sanctioned by ArbCom and neither admitted any wrong doing. How are their editing styles (Rick advocates for his non-predominantly-sources article POV, Nijdam continues to refer to reliable sources as 'wrong' and 'not reliable' based only on his OR) and discussion points of today different than they were prior to each being sanctioned?


In the case of "Ownership" and "Lack of Good Faith", there is no difference between content and conduct. That is the insidiousness and the cruelness of those vile policy violations. But those violators and violations require craftspeople and tools much more sophisticated and willing to think, than the goons and bludgeons commonly used to recognize and deal with 3RR, Puppetry, Edit Warring, and the like. Just how many finding of Ownership were found in 2011? How many of those finding were against an admin? How many were against the admin that brought their own case to the ArbCom, improperly continuing to blame a non-compliant editor, simply for being non-compliant with the admin's violations?


Here's how Rick Block saw himself in his opening ArbCom statement, and has never shown remorse:

"Although more than one of the involved editors have exhibited problematic behaviors, one editor in particular exhibits nearly all the classic signs of disruptive editing and has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made..."


"This editor will (of course) cast me as the bad guy here, and although I admit I have made an occasional intemperate comment under extreme and relentless provocation (e.g. [10]), I trust arbcom will see things much more the way I do than the way he does.[59]"


The simple facts, regardless of any words you post, is that ArbCom's findings were quite contrary to that. And neither of the participants has shown remorse. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Admin[edit]


Ok, I'm considering it a bit more serious, but I'm asking a few opinions first, to insure that I'm not wasting RfA's time or mine. I invite your input.  [60]  Dennis Brown  (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



  • I've been talked into running the gauntlet by you and others.  Pedro has offered to put me up at RfA, and I would like you to participate in that process if you are still up to the task.  Thanks for the kind words and support.  Dennis Brown  (talk) (contrib) 12:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


My arb clarification request[edit]


I didn't think it was that difficult a question that it wouldn't be answered almost immediately... am I missing something? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The Signpost: 16 April 2012[edit]








Hi Elen,

Could I request you to review my article Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Paturi Sitaramanjaneyulu . Let me know if I need to do anything to make it accepted ? 
Most of Sri Sitaramanjaneyulu's works are published telugu books. He has more than 85 published works. Some of the information I have published here is gathered from him when he was alive and from his family. Need your help to create this page and publish it. 

Appriciate your help. 
Srilalitha  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sri pusuluri (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] 



Review request : Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Paturi Sitaramanjaneyulu[edit]


Hi Elen,

Could I request you to review my article Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Paturi Sitaramanjaneyulu . Let me know if I need to do anything to make it accepted ? Most of Sri Sitaramanjaneyulu's works are published telugu books. He has more than 85 published works. Some of the information I have published here is gathered from him when he was alive and from his family. Need your help to create this page and publish it.

Appriciate your help.
Srilalitha 
Sri pusuluri (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



SPI patrolling admin request[edit]


At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glkanter there is a request under Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments asking "Can somebody more experienced look at this? Looks like the same guy, but might be copycat and or admirer." I assume he has already read this page. Do you have any suggestions as to who/where I might ask for help answering the above question? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Evidence Phase[edit]


Just a friendly reminder that the evidence phase has closed. If you would like to add evidence please speak to a clerk or one of the drafting arbs. Thanks, --Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Questions to the parties:[edit]


Your attention is requested here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop#Questions_to_the_parties Thank you. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Another mentor or enough mentors?[edit]


I'm on mentorship. However, Fastily has retired, so I wonder if there is a need to request a replacement for Fastily. --George Ho (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Also, I have unsolved pending requests: User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions#Restoring "File:UKTV.svg" and #WikiProject Cheers. --George Ho (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. While I don't feel I would want to be called an "official" mentor (though I agree that it would be nice if someone was found who might be willing to step in and help mentor), I would be happy to be a "helpful editor" if either of you would like. I have done this some already, but was not comfortable diving more fully into the mentorship page as I was/am not an "official" mentor (Yes I know anyone is welcome, but just was a personal feeling). but if you (plural) would like such help, I'll treat it like being involved in editor assistance : )

Please feel free to drop me a note and let me know what you think. - jc37 01:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Om Nom Nom[edit]


Hi Elen, hope you're well. Per User_talk:Dennis_Brown#Nomination I believe you're also interested in nominating Dennis for adminship? If that's so perhaps you can advise me / Dennis? Cheers. Pedro :  Chat   13:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Update. The RFA is actually created at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dennis Brown, so perhaps you could either add a nomination if you still wish, or if not (or you're too busy - fully understand that!) then advise Dennis or I. Ta. Pedro :  Chat   18:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added.  Sorry, this is the first chance I've had. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - no need to apologise whatsoever, it's only been a few hours. Pedro :  Chat   20:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Your thoughts[edit]


Hi. I apologise in advance for what (intentional) vagueness there is in the following...

Essentially, there is an admin who I seriously don't feel should have been given adminship. In my experience/opinion, they have a mistaken view of the appropriateness of when and how to use the tools, and just do not show the discernment that I feel should be exhibited in such use and such responsibilities. (This is, in my opinion, more than merely over-zealousness - events going back months to years.) 

That said, desysopping admins is not only a mess, and rarely done, it's a drama mess. And you pretty much have to build a tree of links with a mountain of explanatory text and so on, and by the time it's done, it's bad feelings all around. Meh.

Though I'm not thrilled with their actions, and feel that all too often they come across a bit over the top with others, I don't dislike the editor at all. And for the most part they are a decent contributor. So I really would like to avoid the unfortunately typical negativity.

Your thoughts/suggestions would be most welcome. - jc37 01:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Apologies for slow reply - RL demanded that I do some work!!  What I would try - if mere conversation with the individual on or off wiki hasn't worked (and I would try that first) - is a WP:RFC/U with a very clear statement that you want to explore their admin activities with a view to seeing if there are issues that the editor can address. Being an admin can require making hard decisions, and admins can easily get a 'down the steps' mentality - seeing everyone as a bit of a villain - for example. Emphasis that what you want to do is see if there is a problem (the pitch should include that there's always the possibility it's just you that sees a problem), and if there is then there is the opportunity for the subject to review and refresh their outlook.  I'm all in favour of people doing that. Be prepared to police it for trolling. That would give you a view of whether others see the same problems that you do, and an opportunity for the individual to see how they are perceived.  If the RFC creates a mountain of problematic evidence which the admin ignores, then you've pretty much made your RfAR case.  If they say "I did not realise this was a problem, I will take remedial action" then everyone is a winner. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Take a look at Christ myth theory[edit]


The Christ myth theory article could use a fresh pair of eyes as your fellow administrator Akhilleus seems to have issue with the idea expressed by you and SlimVirgin that seemed to mirror my own (Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Believed_truth_vs_Verifiability_.22truth.22) and IMHO is trying to POV this article into something not supported by the material.  His claim I am "doggedly campaigning for all sorts of OR through SYN" while going behind the talk page's back Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard a tactic he has used regarding this article in the past (Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Jesus_myth_hypothesis): 

"From time to time Akhilleus comes to this notice board when he is having difficulties maintaining his editing goals for the Jesus myth hypothesis article. I would like him to explain how that differs from WP:Canvassing. I consider this all the more problematic because he never notifies other editors of the article what he has done, and that there is conversation about the article on this noticeboard." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

is especially troubling.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



More eyes would indeed be welcome, especially since Bruce seems to be quoting three year old posts by socks of banned users (User:Malcolm Schosha) to stir up calumny against me. The noticeboard post he's complaining about is at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory. Cheers! --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Elen, thanks for the input, but I wonder if I could ask you to weigh in on the issue that I started the noticeboard thread with—namely, are there problems with OR and SYNTH in the "meaning of the whole term" section of the article? I quote the text I believe is problematic in my initial post at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory. Thanks again. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Elen, thanks for taking another look. Much appreciated. I wonder, though, if you would mind looking at BruceGrubb's recent post on the article talkpage here: Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Wikipedia:No_original_research_Noticeboard_comments. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


For your own reference I point you to Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Proposal:_rename_article_as_Christ_myth_theory where Phatius McBluff on 15 December 2011 less then a YEAR ago pointed out "Also, not all theories that go by the name "Jesus myth" or "Christ myth" deny the existence of a historical Jesus, whereas they all question, to various degrees, the story of the Christ of Christianity." and editor Bill the Cat 7 simply replied "Same as above" as more evidence that I am not the only one that hold this view.  I believe you and I are in agreement that there is no one Christ myth theory thought I must ask if you share SlimVirgin's view that the entire article is one big CFORK.


As for my own views I will agree with Akhilleus so far s that there is a separate notable concept here.  But based on the material as a whole conflicts and all I think that ther concept is Jesus is a myth in the broadest possible terms with much of Christ myth theory going on how the Gospel Jesus didn't exist and that even if there was a first century teacher named Jesus there is nothing to show that the Gospel Jesus describes accurately that Jesus.


As I said in the talk page if there a core to all the permutations of things called the Christ myth theory it is that Christianity was a Great Moment event that didn't need a founder and even if he did exist in the proper time and place there is nothing to connect him to the Gospel version just as other than name there is nothing to connect the John Frum of the cargo cult to the person history records as using that name (different decade, different race, different nationality, and even different literacy level).--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


User:George Ho/Block History#Blackmark[edit]


Help! This person believes that I broke the rules of limited disambiguity. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

update: "Blackmark (novel)" was requested as "Technical Move" and then contested into Talk:Blackmark (novel). --George Ho (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



In response to Elen of the Roads' comment on my talk page: I did not "threaten" in any way, shape or form. That is a mischaracterization and an attack on my integrity. Indeed, I provided an example of reasonable, collegial discussion before retitling an article. WP:BOLD is not a catch-all rationale for any disruptive action.


Given the disruptive quality of his edit, and his singular lack of discussion beforehand, I don't believe it was unreasonable to point out past disruptive behavior.


Reasonable minds certainly can differ on that last part — but not on an inaccurate accusation, and for that reason I respectively ask you to strike "threatened" from your post on my talk page. It is factually inaccurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Help! I don't know what to say to Tenebrae ([61]). What about WP:RFC/USER? --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Now what do you think about his recent comments on my talk page? --George Ho (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Okay or not okay: temporary mentor?[edit]


I've asked for a temporary mentor. Is this okay? --George Ho (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



No problems.  Sorry I've been kind of busy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


YGM[edit]


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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)  00:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Disruption at Astronomy Project[edit]


Input from User:Rich_Farmbrough is needed quickly at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Articles_for_Redirect.  Please allow him to do this as his not being able to do so is disrupting that project. Thank you. Chrisrus (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



He's blocked. You can ask him for input on his talkpage - he doesn't need to be unblocked to exchange information with you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have, but it's not me per se he needs to talk to but the whole project. Chrisrus (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then they can all come and talk on his talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That causes problems in keeping track of the discussion and more importantly reduces the amount of project members who will follow the discussion.  What good is there in preventing him from posting to the project page?  When will he be unblocked?  Chrisrus (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When his block expires (check his block log), provided Arbcom haven't imposed a sanction in the meantime. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it as a prisoner being escorted to the courthouse in chains to testify as a material witness.  Thinking of it this way, I can't see how you could object.  We need an exception to the block that would allow him to answer questions with regard to his part in the minor planet redirection process before the entire project.  ASAP.  Please. Chrisrus (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not actually blocked anyway.  The Arb clerks unblocked him so that he could edit the arbitration pages only.  You'll need to talk to them - Arbcom might agree an exception. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did they unblock him?  I understand you to be saying that he's promised to edit only arbitration pages for now and that posting to a project page would be seen as breaking that promise unless I can get Arbcom to agree first.  Is that correct?  Where exactly should I post this request to Arbcom? Chrisrus (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess (1) that's correct, and (2) you could contact the clerks at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks or arbcom at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee (which doesn't appear to be intended for that but does appear to be used for that). Probably best to approach the clerks first, and they can advise what to do next. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Slap[edit]


In case you ever need quote to go with your most excellent comment... 



She nodded. “Pleased to meet you,” she told it. “So you’re my slap-drone?”
Kallier-Falpise rocked back in the air as though hit. “Please. That’s a little pejorative, if I may say so, Ms. Y’breq. I’ll be accompanying you principally for your own convenience and protection.”

—Surface Detail


Thanks for the good point and the laugh. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I wondered if anyone would spot it:) Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 23 April 2012[edit]








Hi[edit]


Hi, I just saw your username. By any chance are you interested in roads? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



:) No, no more than any other topic.  It's the name of a Welsh Saint. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sad. Well, anyway, I hope our paths cross sometime. :) Happy editing. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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


Darknessshines[edit]


Please tell him I do not need his notification I will try and stay away from wiki for a week or two and cool down I will probably be back to message that link thingy you placed on DS talk page but I certainly do not want contact with that knob DS do what your supposed to and block this ip after reading ;) 86.182.219.186 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Mail[edit]


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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Cailil  talk 20:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]


Hi Elen of the Roads, I just discovered that I was listed as a suspected sockpuppet here. While I realize that it's impossible to conduct an investigation without targeting a few unrelated accounts, I still wonder why I was suspected. I guess I've edited in the same area as Yaratam or one of his socks, but I couldn't finy any connection at all to any of these accounts? jonkerz ♠talk 10:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



This was a combined filing from an ANI discussion, and one of the parties who was eventually blocked claimed that you were a sock of one of the other parties, so the admin who filed it (Kuru) put everyone on the list. You were quickly eliminated - I think you'd made one edit to Charles Lampkin that one of the sockmasters had made extensive edits to. There was nothing else to link you. You do sometimes get that situation - it's often just as important that the SPI admins weed out the innocent parties as it is to block the socks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Do you have a link to the page where one of the socks claims I'm a sock? I couldn't find it, and it makes me more worried than just being investigated. If you don't know where to find it quickly, you don't have to spend time looking for it, I'm just curious :) jonkerz ♠talk 10:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here is where the list of names originated.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this. jonkerz ♠talk 11:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification Needed[edit]


Hello, Elen! I, like you, was confused about the insistence that indeffed editors could have their edits reverted just like a banned editor's can be. I had always been told that one of the major differences between indeffed and banned was the fact that the banned ones could be reverted without question; I guess I'd always read the table that way. When it was first created, the distinction between who to revert was clear. As I pointed out on AN/I, the significant change to that table happened at the end of November of last year, and while there was an announcement on the talk page, no one seemed to much react. However, they probably didn't notice after the change that the table now actually reads that all blocked editors (not just indeffed) can have their edits reverted just like banned editors. I... don't think that's accurate.

So, what's the deal? Can blocked and banned editors be reverted just the same? Or should the change to the table be reexamined? I eagerly await your reply! Doc talk 17:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I think that needs further discussion.  I can see what Kww meant, but there isn't community agreement for what he actually wrote, which was different. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think community practice is very much in line with the current contents of the table. Reverting edits simply based on block evasion is standard practice, and WP:CSD#G5 clearly applies to all blocked editors. The only time it becomes any kind of issue is when the underlying block itself is controversial.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table suggests to me that creations by blocked editors *while evading their block* can be undone. What they did prior to the block is not fair game for G5. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just needs that clarification - that it is edits *by a confirmed sock* (checkuser or duck) made to evade the block. While I know that blocked editors who immediately pop up as IPs are bloody annoying, I am concerned about newbie biting.  It's also still not true that an AfD started by a sock would necessarily be closed if bona fide editors had expressed opinions.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks are not "confirmed" socks, nearly by definition, and it's never been an admin-only privilege to declare someone a sock. I understand your concern, but that's always been an issue. It doesn't matter much whether people are falsely claiming an IP to be a sock of a banned user or are falsely claiming an IP to be a sock of a user on a temporary block: it's the false id that's the problem, not the banned vs. blocked status of the editor. The AFD issue is the same way: I'll close an AFD opened by a sock if there haven't been any "delete" votes, but I'll keep it if there have been, because that seems like the logical extension of the "substantial edit" test from WP:CSD#G5. There are other admins that use similar logic, and any arguments we've had have centered on what kind of comments constitute a substantial edit, not whether the editor that opened it was banned or merely blocked.—Kww(talk) 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, I regularly close SPIs as without foundation. I am continuously issuing warnings to parts of the community to stop hauling every editor who disagrees with them to SPI. This week, DQ and I have banned one editor from filing any more reports against one individual, and I have issued blocks. While yes, certain editors sock continuously and are very recognisable, the project does not need the aggressive component thinking they can revert on sight anyone who disagrees with them, by claiming that they are a sock of a blocked editor. There is a balance to be struck here, is all I am saying. If an editor wishes to revert another editor on the grounds that they are a sock, there has to be some evidence. There has to be some process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you. The fundamental problem we have is the reluctance to run checkuser against IPs, which leaves editors feeling like they have no place to turn. SPI reports filed against IPs based on behavioural evidence take a long time to process and are typically closed as ducks. If a checkuser is requested, it's generally rejected, as checkusers generally refuse to run the checks even when policy allows them to, and that's presuming that you can get the clerk to approve the CU request in the first place. I think that until we reduce that problem, we are kind of stuck where we are. The only thing I think we could probably gain consensus for is being substantially harsher with people that file frivolous SPI reports. Anyone that tries to edit war using socking as a justification had better be able to be convincing when pressed. On the other hand, we can't tell them that they have to have solid evidence and then tell them that our privacy policy prohibits anyone from gathering evidence, especially when it doesn't. Additionally, we haven't got any special "sock-detecting" merit badge or user right. I spent a lot of my time before becoming an admin chasing and reverting socks, and only became an admin so that I could do it more efficiently. I was well within policy when I was doing that work, and it's something I don't want to discourage other editors from taking up.—Kww(talk) 11:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that too - many IP socks are of the blinding obvious, and a faster method to whack 'em would be helpful. I think probably - in terms of the block/ban policy - to be clear that for named accounts particularly those that have other edits, an SPI is needed before reverting. Dynamic IPs and obvious throwaway accounts can be reverted, but an SPI must be filed or an admin familiar with the sockmeister alerted - for the record. Care must be taken not to badge new editors who do no more than express a similar opinion as socks of an editor one was in disagreement with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could get me on board for a low-overhead reporting requirement, but nothing too onerous or slow. The goal is for a third-party to be able to look over an editor's reverts and take action if hasty/sloppy/poor judgment is being used, not to make sock-fighting so laborious that people give up trying.—Kww(talk) 12:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Could I ask for your advice?[edit]


Hi, we've not spoken before I don't think. If you scroll down and want to reply "thanks but really prefer not to comment" that's perfectly okay.

Anyway. I'm not sure how I missed it, probably a total lack of interest in sports, but I failed to be aware of the high drama surrounding ice-hockey stubs last year. Then about five weeks ago I idly entered a RM on a Hungarian tennis player and (not liking what I saw, to be honest) took sides with the Hungarian editors - more because it's a BLP, consistency and MOS than any interest in tennis. I presume tennis players are mainly human. If you check my User page you'll see I haven't touched a tennis racket for 30 years. Anyway the long and short of it is I came to the conclusion that "[French name], known professionally as [French name with no accents]" ledes were silly and not benefitting WP and then after discussions nominated three lots of tennis player BLPs, 5x, 2x and then later 15x, for frenchification. So far no problem. Mike Cline relisted the first one then closed it (I completely agree and understand why) and recommended a wider discussion, which I initiated on WT:BLP sending round 100x invitations to the participants in the various tennis-name RMs. Still so far no problem. Then I did something unwise - before I realised the extent of last year's ice-hockey issue (since the RMs I saw were about tennis), while looking at Czech bios that were out of line I sourced and moved Filip Čech and RMed Martin Čech (deceased), who are ice-hockey bios. (So far also no problem, I hope, stop me if I'm boring you). Then today a category:Czech-language surnames hndis Skořepa I had set up to use as non-tennis example at WT:BLP was picked up by a new page patroller who nominated the surnamed Josef Skorepa at RM. That was more than I was expecting and not particularly well timed. I've posted a copious blurb on the RM. In doing so I've mentioned User Dolovis and the history of ice-hockey, which was probably very unwise. I shouldn't really be commenting on past history I wasn't around for and have very possibly misunderstood.

To come to the point. I note from history of this saga that you're familiar with this issue, I'm not. I'm not requesting that you do anything, but I would appreciate advice please. If I've broken any taboos, or sailed to close to the wind, or said anything that is incorrect/unhelpful, could you please advise so I can remove it? I'm still of the opinion that failure to give users guidance to spell living persons' names correctly leads to some users not making an effort spell living persons' names correctly. But I also feel that this is probably getting near diminishing returns. If you know what I mean. Thanks for your time. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I don't think there's any problem with the wider discussion - like you I wish the community would just make up its mind!!! I don't even think there's a problem with that specific discussion the NPPer started. Given the way things moved after Dolovis, the article should have been started at the diacritic version. As long as everyone keeps their temper (they're just marks on a page people - no-one is molesting your granny) and no-one else starts creating redirects to prevent articles being moved to the diacritic title, we shall be alright.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, that's sort of reassuring but will go slowly. I appreciate you taking the time to take a look. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Actually it seems redirects were created to prevent articles being moved in tennis as well, but it's ancient history now as the last 15 tennis anglicizations are up at RM and if consensus is followed tennis BLPs at least will have a measure of consistency. The WT:BLP proposal has lost momentum. See also WT:Article_titles#Permission_to_make_a_shortcut. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Elen, writing here for convenience so you can connect me, not connecting with above discussion; would it be considered acceptable if I asked [62] [63] on their Talk page if they have edited before under a different ID? Is that allowable with etiquette? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Help, please?[edit]


For some reason, the Deuce (singer) page is not functioning right. When you go to it, all you see is the infobox and the rest of the page is blank. But if you press "edit", all the info is right there. I don't know how to fix this, do you think you can help? Panic Reaper (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Fixed. It was a bit of bad formatting in the infobox :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We edit conflicted.  I took the entire comment out - I can't think it was appropriate even though it clearly came from the heart. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about it, but I decided I was most definitely not qualified to make a judgement ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what sort of noise music alleged this chap makes, but I didn't think the tone of the remark was quite what one wants to see in the article code. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah... no, you're absolutely right. I confess I didn't get past the word crunkcore. You live and learn...! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you[edit]


Now that the dust has settled a bit, I wanted to take the time and properly thank you for having faith in me.  I will try my best to make sure that the trust you put in me is always well earned.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



No worries. Sorry I went a bit MIA in the last 48 hrs - never responded to your email, but I got hit by a flu, hardly got out of bed two days, and when I did, it was all over bar the shouting.  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I hope you are feeling better.  The small bit of drama during the RfA didn't seem as major to me as it did to others and I was overwhelmed by the positive response from others.  I harbor no ill will toward anyone, we all are just different I suppose.  I had done what I felt was right, and when things got ugly, I concluded that the best thing I could do was be quiet, walk away and let others look at and deal with it.  Honestly, it was still more civil than the MMA discussion have been, so I think I was prepared for that aspect.  The entire RfA process did make me feel "on display", like a cow being walked out at auction, but I'm guessing that is normal.  Anyway, all the shiny new buttons scare me a bit ;).  I'm -1 for blocks, having not blocked and only unblocked one per an ANI compromise between an the admin and editor.  I would rather be a mediator than a bouncer anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Darwinbish, I was just about to tell you to put that back:). Dennis, the British English expression is "all over bar the shouting". "Bar" is bookie-speech for "except for". --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry.  I was blaming it on your cough medicine and just trying to be helpful, but I was wrong all along.  I learn something new every day!   Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Talkback[edit]


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








Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads/2012_(1)&oldid=1151050715"