User talk:Elonka

Re: Joelster

Thanks for the heads-up, Elonka. east.718 at 21:40, May 17, 2008

Answering

Hi. I'm the IP who has been editing the Azhar University article and the other articles on Hezbollah members. I hope you actually saw the edits and have seen that the only POV-pushing is coming from MezzoMezzo and Causteau, as you can see from their contributions. MezzoMezzo, since he joined Wikipedia, has apparently been adding his Wahhabi puritan POV to Islam-related articles, and as you can witness from his edits, has a very anti-Shia bias. Concerning al-Azhar university, please compare the two disputed versions and you will see that I added a very neutral direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, whereas their wording of the article has Sunni bias and implies that Sunnism, unlike Shiism, is orthodox. Before I edited the article, it said It became a Sunni school towards the end of the Middle Ages, an orientation it retains to this day. without any mention of Saladin and how he converted the whole of Egypt to Sunnism and implies that Al Azhar gradually became Sunni, by choice. Causteau has since been reverting my edit with the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, calling his a consensus version, and both have been working tirelessly to keep the article, as well as others, according to Sunni point of view, with no regard to neutrality and factuality. In another article, 'Amr ibn al-'As, I added material which reflects what the source says, and the material had always been there until changed sometime ago by someone, possibly MezzoMezzo. MezzoMezzo then threatened to report me for vandalism for reverting sourced material without actually reading the source. He then moved to revert every other edit I made to members of Hezbollah where I removed from the terrorist category for the sake of neutrality. Nasim Nisr, who had never carried a gun, was included in the category. From his edits and previous versions of his userpage, you can notice that MezzoMezzo is a Wahhabi and is responsible for anti-Shia bias in most Islam-related pages. Please note, that despite User:Causteau being extremely unpleasant and aggressive and MezzoMezzo's disturbing and sickening POV-pushing all over Wikipedia, I have been very patient and, until now, I have refrained from complaining of Causteau's incivility and MezzoMezzo's edits. MezzoMezzo, though more cautious and less aggressive than Causteau, has been been inflicting much more damage to Wikipedia with his silent POV-pushing. I ask you to look at their behavior and act accordingly, as neither of the two should be allowed to edit. NAccount (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating an account! I have been looking into the situation, and agree that there has been some problematic behavior. However, it also looks to me like there are problems from both sides. I have left some advice on your talkpage, which may help to de-escalate and untangle this situation. Elonka 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's unfortunate that he had to be pushed to the brink of being banned for anonymous IP guy to feel the need to create an account, it is great for the sake of Wikipedia that he did finally do so. His persistent, disruptive edits should now hopefully be much easier to keep track of. I do, however, find it highly amusing that he has the audacity to talk about incivility and aggressive talk when he was the one to introduce that very tone to the discussion. This is easy to prove thanks to time stamps, which of course he didn't include in his little paragraph above.

From the Al-Azhar University history page:

1) no, actually they do; read them again and don't push it (date: 13:40, 30 May 2008 -> he drew first blood)

2) stop pushing your POV; they say "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt" (date: 13:50, 30 May 2008)

3) fixed; your intentionally disinformative version implies that Azhar became Sunni by choice, and gradually (date: 14:10, 30 May 2008)

4) you're pushing it; see talk (date: 14:46, 30 May 2008)

5) get a life (date: 17:24, 30 May 2008)

6) talk about POV; I'm sure the administrators are wise enough to actually check the sources instead of listening to you (date: 06:22, 1 June 2008)

7) rvv; stop pushing your POV and respect the source, which is Encyclopedia Britannica; also, I don't remember reaching a consensus (date: 23:50, 1 June 2008)

8) NPOV; stop pushing your agenda, your intentions are very clear (date: 16:35, 2 June 2008)

He was also the first to introduce incivility on the talk page:

Egyptians were Shi'a Muslims and when Saladin removed the Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam, they became Sunnis. Doesn't it mean that he converted them? Do you know the meaning of convert? (date: 13:53, 30 May 2008)

In short, NAccount was the first to be rude and uncivil in our dealings; it was he that opened up that particular can of worms. He has no business pretending now like he is a victim in all this when he initiated that very behavior. His rudeness also wasn't just confined to the Al-Azhar University history or talk pages either, but can be found on other Wiki pages too. Call me crazy, but I refuse to be spoken to like that by anyone.

With that one post above, NAccount has made many predictably bogus charges I would like to address point by point:

1) He writes: Before I edited the article, it said It became a Sunni school towards the end of the Middle Ages, an orientation it retains to this day. without any mention of Saladin and how he converted the whole of Egypt to Sunnism and implies that Al Azhar gradually became Sunni, by choice. This is something of a joke since not one of the battery of unrelated sources he kept including in his edits talks about how Saladin converted anyone much less "the whole of Egypt" to Sunnism. That is a blatant lie and misrepresentation on NAccount's part. Only one of his sources states that "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". I've already explained to him on the talk page in an edit dated 14:00, 30 May 2008 why this in no way supports his absurd, slanderous contention that "Saladin converted Egypt to Sunni Islam by force":

"Restoring" Sunni Islam in Egypt is not the same thing as suggesting that "when Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" like you originally stated nor is it the same thing as your revised statement that "Saladin converted Egyptians to Sunni Islam". He did no such thing. Nowhere does it say he converted anyone let alone Egyptians. It says he restored Sunni Islam in Egypt, meaning there was already a tradition of Sunni Islam in place in Egypt before the rise to prominence of the Shiite Fatimids. All Saladin did was put things back the way they were (i.e. restoration) per your own source.

Please note again that NAccount under various anonymous IPs inserted that one lie that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" -- which he also personally authored -- not once, not twice, but a record six times on the Al-Azhar University page alone: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. He first did this without even bothering to include a source i.e. pure original research. Then, when I called him on it, he tacked on not one, not two, but five irrelevant, dummy sources -- none of which support his statement -- to create the illusion that what he was saying was factual instead of the POV it was and is. I know his sources for the above statement are bogus because I followed up on them and posted a report on the talk page (see my post dated 11:09, 30 May 2008). He also tried to insert that same slanderous lie about Saladin "forcibly" converting Egyptians to Sunni Islam a grand total of twice on the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa page: 7, 8.

2) NAccount writes: Concerning al-Azhar university, please compare the two disputed versions and you will see that I added a very neutral direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, whereas their wording of the article has Sunni bias and implies that Sunnism, unlike Shiism, is orthodox and Causteau has since been reverting my edit with the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, calling his a consensus version Here, NAccount is trying to justify and thereby secure his current reversion of the Al-Azhar University article by alleging that there was something inherently biased about the article as it stood before he came along and reverted it. Thing is, literally one sentence differentiates "his" latest version from "mine", and that sentence is a direct quote. So what we have here is NAccount replacing a sourced, direct quote I put in simply because it didn't fit his agenda with one that is more to his liking, nevermind the fact that a) my direct quote was drawn from a source that he himself picked out, b) it was in place well before it ever occurred to him to include his own properly referenced direct quote, and c) both Mezzo and I also consider that version far preferable to his. That's what we meant when we clearly asked NAccount to "respect the consensus version until mediation can be finished", which of course he didn't do. Now the page ironically sits exactly as he wanted it to and despite all of the above. Causteau (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me. But I don't think I have been responsible for any disruption, at least not intentionally. You can clearly notice that I was trying to keep the Al-Azhar article neutral while the other users have been trying to impose their point of view and label by edits as vandalism, as they did in many occasions. I haven't complained before, but MezzoMezzo's behavior and Causteau's excessive aggressiveness and incivility are very problematic and should be dealt with. I showed great patience by not responding to Causteau's incivility and I think it should be considered, and Causteau's behavior should not have gone unnoticed. As for MezzoMezzo, his edits are causing great harm to Wikipedia and his edits have not been dealt with because MezzoMezzo has been very cautious in respecting the rules of Wikipedia while silently infecting the articles with his Wahhabi 9/11 brand of Islam. One of the edits he made when reverting my edits was this one, which very clearly shows that he has an agenda. Even if he knows every rule in Wikipedia and makes sure he doesn't do or say anything that will get him blocked, that doesn't mean that his edits are not harmful and that he doesn't have an agenda. I strongly believe that he should be banned from editing Wikipedia and all his edits, since his account was created, are evidence of his intentions. They should be reviewed and he should be blocked accordingly. NAccount (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but could you please explain why you feel that this edit shows a deliberate agenda?[1] To me, it looks like a difference of opinion. Any editor who wishes to remove a prod tag, may do so. If you disagree with their action, you may submit the article for AfD, to get more opinions. --Elonka 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I might've been inclined to take seriously this user's protestations that he is simply "not intentionally" trying to be "responsible for any disruption" had he not for days now been repeatedly attempting to insert blatant POV statements not just on the Al-Azhar page as I've demonstrated above, but now, more alarmingly, tampering with the pages of terror suspects, as Mezzo has already rightly pointed out. This wasn't just a one time mistake over one comment and one source on one page; it's all over Wikipedia. Causteau (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow...Elonka, is this really appropriate? Wahabi is a religious slur. In fact, an earlier user pushing Shi'a POV named Klak Sonn was banned permanently for hurling that at me and others. His editing style was very similar to this guy's as well. I'm going to open up a complaint on WP:ANI separate from the other one. Aside from these comments being bigoted and unnaceptable, it's looking to me very much like a sockpuppet of a banned user. I would appreciate your analysis. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for the calming effect. I wasn't consciously trying to escalate anything (I didn't realize you were an admin either) but I will follow our advise and leave that off. But let me explain.

Klak Sonn came into conflict with a number of editors over Sunni-Shi'a issues months ago. The problem was, the guy had a short fuse and had a tendency to call all Muslims who disagreed with him "Wahhabis" and all non-Muslims who disagreed with him "kikes" or "Jews". I hate typing that filthy word but I want to get across the gravity of how out there this guy was. He was eventually blocked not just for expressly hurling that religious slur at me and the religious slur at some people who may not have even been Jewish, but also his combative nature.

A month or so ago, another anon tried pushing some POV on the article for Ali, a prominent figure in both Sunni and Shi'a Islam, insulting some other editors who were reverting him. I reverted his edits and said up front I suspect this is a sock of banned user Klak Sonn, and the anon stopped.

As you've observed, this new buddy emerged from a number of anonymous IP addresses. His current habits of offense appear very similar to Klak Sonn's own style of editing. And that's just the least of it. I'm also confused as to why NAccount says i've been pushing my POV the entire time i've been on Wikipedia - if he really is a new editor, then how is he so sure of that?

Per your requests, I will try to give it a rest for now. You're trying hard to do your job as an admin as I can see and I wil respect that. But i'm just saying, this guy at the minimum is abusing other users with his bigotry and at the maximum could be the same guy trying to come back. Just check the two user contribs. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, I'm coming up from zero on this whole dispute. The best way that you can help me right now, is to stay very calm and civil, and to ensure that there is a thread started at the talkpage of any article that is under dispute. Even if this means that "bad" information stays in an article for awhile, please try to take the long view. Let's try to focus on a couple clearcut areas. Also, since of the disputes are about text which seems to be coming from non-English sources, it would be very helpful to include specific quotes from reliable sources, to assist with verification. Also, would a centralized place of discussion be helpful? What exactly is the scope of these disputes? Is it all Sunni-Shia, or Lebanon, or Egypt, or something else? Thanks, Elonka 04:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Both for the sake of clarity and to make your job easier, i'll let things go for the time being. You've shown a great deal of patience and i'll do my best to reciprocate.

Regarding the edits, I wouldn't even call that the main issue now as your efforts to work things out via talk pages slowly has allayed my fears (in addition to your perspective on the terrorist categories). My main concern now is as I mentioned in my last comment. Even if this guy isn't a sockpuppet of Klak Sonn - though I am 99% sure he is, based on the similar language and the fact that he seems so stuck on my long term edits and user page (both of which Klak Sonn also took issue with multiple times) - his behavior is the same. He's already used one definite religious slur, "Wahhabi", so which other users have been blocked, multiple times. Considering that he seems very familiar not only with site policy but also the way diffs and edit histories work, I don't think he should be treated like a noob.

Long story short, you've cooled the situation and the edits can be worked out slowly. But the guys behavior and history are stil a big concern for me. I know you've spent a lot of time on this already, but please look into it if you can. I smell stinky sock all over this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why don't you take the lead on that aspect of it. I recommend filing a CheckUser or Suspected sockpuppet report, and then compiling evidence there. If the user is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, that may be fairly straightforward to deal with. --Elonka 05:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all the help. A case is now opened on SSP if you'd like to take a look. I will likely be adding more diffs to it when I get the time. For now, i'm logging off. Thanks again! MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn? Okay, thanks for pulling that together, I'll take a look.  :) --Elonka 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmouk

Please check the battle maps now. I have gone by your word and have annotated the maps with rich detail. And yes, the maps depict a 3-dimensional terrain as well so its worth a watch. Please comment on the maps. Your input had been great. Thanks. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit bored by the Yarmouk article, so I thought to help you out with Battle of Ain Jalut. What would you like me to do for you there? What kind of maps are you looking for? Would vectorising this map work for you? Please reply sooner. I am losing interest rather quickly. :) Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 03:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice find! And yes, that covers the basic path, though I'd like a bit more emphasis on Baghdad and Damascus, since those were such a big deal. Also, another map with more detail about the Levant would be good, emphasizing the Mamluks advancing northward and camping near Acre, the Crusader stronghold. It would also be useful to show that no, they did not advance through Jerusalem, since that's a common point of contention with some of the POV warriors.  :) --Elonka 03:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn

I replied to your query. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-Cultural Dance Resources

Hi Elonka. I got your note about this article that you asked me to check. In this case I'm not certain that WP:CORP is being met (or whatever the equivalent might be for libraries). I notice that Gertrude Kurath is rather famous and has written many more books than the ones listed here, according to Amazon. Since CCDR appears to serve mostly as a repository for her papers I wonder if this material could be merged into Kurath's article. The CCDR article's current references serve mainly to establish Kurath's importance. So my suggestion would be a merge. If regular media took notice of CCDR's ongoing programs, then my opinion might change. If that happened then the material could always be split back out again. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the article with more information and sources, especially about it's being recognized by President Clinton's "Save America's Treasures" program. I'm pretty comfortable that the CCDR meets notability standards... Could you please take another look? If you'd like more sources, I can definitely pull more up, but I think the case for notability is made pretty clearly at this point.  :) --Elonka 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

R&I Archive setting

Elonka, I don't think it's productive to keep adjusting the archive setting for the R&I article to prevent the page from getting to a point where you feel it's too long. This is an article which generates a lot of controversy, and a lot of discussion. Currently, most of it is productive but the dialogues are lengthy, so pushing the archive setting to shorten the page at this point I feel is counterproductive. I would appreciate if you could put the archive setting back to where it was, and try to leave it there. At least, please ask the other editors on the page their opinion about this if you're not ready to accept my word for it.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When talkpages increase in size to over 100K, they should be archived. See also WP:SIZE and WP:ARCHIVE. Right now things are set so that if a thread gets no activity for a week, it'll be auto-archived. If anyone wants to see the thread, it's easily available in the archive, and they can link to it when starting a new thread, or copy appropriate portions back to the live page. Or you folks can come up with some other system of archiving, that's fine too. Whatever keeps the page under 100K, is fine with me. :) --Elonka 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, after checking the settings,I saw that the archive bot was also set to auto-archive at 200k. This is consistent with some other high-traffic talk pages, so I think between an archive max of 200k and an age max of 14 days, we should be fine.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Where are you seeing the 200K number? --Elonka 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A line says Maxrchivesize two lines above the algo line.

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 12

|algo = old(15d)

I set it at 150k,as I found out it's more common to set it that way than 200k.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion. That line covers the size of the archive that the bot will allow, before it makes a new page. For example, if it's archiving to /Archive_68, when that page gets to 150K, that's when the bot flips and starts archiving to /Archive_69 instead. It has nothing to do with the maximum size of the active talkpage. Which should still be kept under 100K if reasonably possible. --Elonka 22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point there. I guess my issue has to do with the constant adjusting of the archive delay, rather than anything else. You are absolutely right that the page size needs to be curtailed somehow. Thus, I ask you: would you be confident to set it to a value such that it doesn't need to be changed (or at least very rarely)? If so, what would be that value? It's probably just me, but the constant adjusting seems like an unnecessary distraction. I'm open to suggestions. And sorry if I may have come across a bit on the heavy side earlier.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, if you don't mind my saying so, I think you're watching the page a bit much, for this kind of thing to jump out at you. If you'll look at the history, you can see that I tweaked it on June 4, and the time before that was May 12.[2] Which seems fairly reasonable to me. When I first noticed the problem, the page was over 455K! My main goal, as I said, is to ensure that the page stays at a manageable size. Some browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K, though we don't need to be that strict. Keeping it at a nice "cruise" of 40-75K was good for a few weeks, but then when things got busy again (as they have recently), the page climbed to other 150K again, so it required another tweak. What exactly is your concern about the archiving? Or in other words, are you worried that visitors to the page should see something on the "live" page, that they won't if it's in the archive? And if so, what? --Elonka 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have about 100 pages on my watchlist (double that if you count talk pages), and I usually have my browser set directly to my watchlist, so I take notice of things. I don't think I watch the changes too intently, but you're entitled to your opinion, sure. My take on this is that one shouldn't have to adjust the archive setting every three weeks (I'm not aware of any other talk page where that's done with this frequency). However, I agree that something must be done to encourage people to have a better balance between discussing the article and actually making changes. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil remark by User:Koalorka

I just chanced on this user's description of me on his talk page as a "butthurt Marxist foaming at the mouth when confronted with a world view that contradicts their own", which you already spotted. I will probably now go ahead with the report on WP:AN/I, although I will be busy marking exams in Cambridge over the next few days. I regret very much the confusion created by this user's intervention and am sorry that it has created misunderstandings, both with you or fellow administrators like WjB. My friend is going to provide me with photos of his grandfather Edgar Wallace for wikimedia commons. I hope also that you enjoyed finding out about knotty sculptures of my transylvanian friend and colleague - he is also a great expert on Argentinian tango (I accompany him). There might be a video somewhere if you are interested in hearing about enigmatic mathematical sculptures. Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Post scriptum: User:Koalorka seems effectively to have repeated his insult of June 2.[3] --Mathsci (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI & Talk:Race and intelligence

Hi Elonka, I've responded to your post on the Jagz issue at AN/I. As an outsider who had the issues there brought to my attention I absolutely agree that the verbosity and volume of that page is very confusing. I think a speed-brake does need to be applied my suggestion is 2 fold:

1. All editors (other than Jagz) enter mediation. This mediation could possibly be "binding" - something along the lines of WP:CEM (when it existed).
2. A comment limit be placed on every contributor to the talk page. Each editor would be allowed one comment of reasonable length per day - 250 words max (including quotes in references)

Extra options would be to place the page under 1RR per day for everyone as well and to have a civility parole for everyone on that page.

I don't agree with the "ban 'em all" strategy becuase of the level of external disruption at that page. Consider the precedent it sets, all that an off-wiki group has to do is low-level disrupt a talk page for 6 months and then editors they have a gripe with are removed--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Eleanor bk 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eleanor bk 2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo315

I have had problems with this user for the past couple of days. He has blantantly been removing content from the Jeff Gordon page and i have warned him numerous times for vandalism. He then removed the warnings and personally attacked me for being a 16 year old. Can you help me with this guy or girl.(Planecrash111 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Jake Morgan

I have nominated Jake Morgan, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Morgan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? AniMate 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually all I did was create the redirect. Looks like an anon did a copy/paste move in September 2007, and nobody caught it. Blech. Ah well, if it's deleted, that'll help straighten things out.  :) --Elonka 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A question for you

See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Administrator intervention requested. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sarah777

Yes, Elonka, thanks for the message. I changed the wording because you asked me to, and I'll leave it at that. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) --Elonka 15:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Sorry, I saw your message after I posted. I'll give it a shot, but it is not easy when the other side does not reciprocate. I'm sure you noticed the condescending tone in which I was being addressed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and don't worry, I'm not trying to single you out.  :) I'm going to continue nudging everyone towards more civil discussions. Gentle nudges at first, and then steadily increasing intensity to anyone that's not listening. But for most people, gentle nudges are usually plenty.  :) Then when those who are willing to moderate their behavior, are discussing things in a more civil way, it makes those who can't moderate their behavior, much easier to identify and deal with.  :) --Elonka 06:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

possible WP:WORKGROUP

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

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

Muhammad al-Durrah

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tundrabuggy

(initial post copied from User talk:MZMcBride)

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

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

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

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

Okay, let me explain things in a bit more detail, then hopefully it will make more sense... The Muhammad al-Durrah article has been in a state of conflict for quite some time. As a result of edit-warring, the page was protected. An AE (Arbitration Enforcement) thread was also started.[4] The conflict also came up at ANI,[5] as some of the involved editors are administrators (ChrisO, SlimVirgin). One of the issues was that ChrisO (an involved editor) was placing editors such as Tundrabuggy under restrictions, even though he really didn't have the authority to do that since he was so involved (see the ANI thread for more discussion on this). My own connection is that I'm a member of the ArbCom-appointed Working Group on cultural and ethnic edit wars, and I occasionally help out at as an uninvolved administrator at AE. I've also been running some experiments on using new techniques to address persistent ethnic disputes on Wikipedia. For example, I've been quite successful with moderating some very complex disputes between Hungarian and Slovakian editors. (see User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment), where I started with a situation of near chaos, with many extraordinarly frustrated editors, and new admin threads starting up every couple days, but within a month I was able to get things calmed down to the point where it's about ready to stamp "resolved" on the whole thing. I was also one of the major writers of Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes.

I first heard of the Muhammad al-Durrah article a few days ago, when I spotted the thread at ANI. I also saw at ANI that a couple of the involved admins (such as ChrisO) were practically begging for an uninvolved admin to come over and help. I hadn't gotten into major Israeli-Palestinian disputes before (I've been avoiding it, to be honest), but I decided to try and help with this one. So, I posted as much as the AE thread, and offered my services at the article talkpage.[6] Some of the key participants accepted me as a mediator/moderator, and so over the last couple days, I've been working on identifying all of the involved parties, and then gradually trying to "cat herd" them into the direction of civility and constructive editing. I hadn't issued any blocks, but I'd been giving mild cautions and "nudges" to multiple editors. In my opinion, Tundrabuggy was actually one of the more cooperative and civil ones and was responding well to my guidance.

Earlier today, I contacted the admin who had placed protection on the page, and asked him to lift protection. He did, and I posted my list of editing restrictions on the talkpage,[7] where I was encouraging editors to, in a nutshell, "Stay civil, don't revert, change instead of delete". There was disagreement about whether or not this was the best course, but I stood firm, and Tundrabuggy was the first editor to dip his toe into the water, by changing one word. MZMcBride then appeared out of nowhere, and slapped a 90-day topic ban on Tundrabuggy.  :/

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Tundrabuggy

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

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

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

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

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

re:mentoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV pusher at Barack Obama

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

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: [8][9] I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: [10] He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary [11] and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page,[12][13] proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: [14] None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus. It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Gang editing

Please see this Talk page thread: [15]. It involves Ramdrake, Alun/Wobble, and Slrubenstein; the editors from the R&I article. Is this type of collusion/meatpuppet-like activity acceptable; that is going from article to article, working as a team? --Jagz (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Okay, but I'd like to point out that there was good progress on the R&I article after it was unlocked on February 1 until a couple of weeks after this message [16], that's when Ramdrake became active again. After Ramdrake became active again, Alun/Wobble and Slrubenstein soon afterwards became active again too and progress soon became next to impossible. --Jagz (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Right, progress can be subjective. I define progress to mean an improvement in the readability of the article by a layperson for one thing. May I suggest that although there had been some normal editing conflicts prior to this, that the turning point in an ability to make progress on the R&I article started at about the time of this edit [17] on March 18. Ramdrake added the edit summary: "Revert - it is the responsibility of the editor pushing for inclusion to gather consensus on the talk page once edits have been challenged." However, since these edits had already been in the article for several weeks, discussion should have occurred on the Talk page prior to removing the material instead of the other way around as Ramdrake maintained. Afterwards, I reverted Ramdrake but Ramdrake reverted me to remove the material again. Although not just limited to those three editors I mentioned above, I believe that the editing became a battle of POVs after that instead of being an effort to create a NPOV article. I was perceived as having a particular POV and was not able to make edits in favor of that POV afterwards regardless of the merit of the edit, regardless of whether the edit improved the NPOV of the article overall, and regardless of edits I made in favor of another POV. It has become a battle of POVs rather than an attempt to produce a NPOV article, granted that different editors may have different views of what constitutes a NPOV article. Maybe that is the solution to the problem, to get everyone to agree to what constitutes a NPOV article, that is if it is possible. --Jagz (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Here are the same 3 editors on another article [18]. I don't think I would be mistaken to say that this type of activity can lead to a contrived consensus. --Jagz (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Your intervention requested

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

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

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

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

Another unprovoked personal attack here: [19] -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

OK.

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

alison's talk page

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

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

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

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

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

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

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

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

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

Sincerely

JnW^talk 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. My email address is [email protected] --Elonka 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick question on Nantes

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

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

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

Courtesy notice

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

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

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

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

User:Santos25Q

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indef-block of User: Jagz

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

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

DYK

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

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

Thanks very much!  :) --Elonka 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverts on Al-Durrah article

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

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

Art conservation

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

RichardMcCoy 03:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A dura - how do you suggest we proceed?

There are two issues here: [20]

One is content the other is procedure:

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

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

A quick question

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

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

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

I'm unsure if you have a concern about my good faith - I may have picked some of your comments up wrong. The last part of your comment to Jehochman[21] seems to paint a picture of me as acting in bad faith. Why would Jehochman's action constitute him "running interference" for me? I also want to ask you this: are you worried that I was tag teaming Jagz? You have used the term "opponents" in your comment at ANI - that bothers me in regard to how my position in that issue is being perceived. I have never edited Race and intelligence or Dysgenics. My last interaction with Ramdrake was to disagree repeatedly with him about his position on User:Deeceevoice at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop. I have worked with Slrubenstein at Feminism but I would not let this fact cloud my action regarding Jagz. Jagz brought himself to my attention with a post at WP:FTN and frankly I see no difference in my intervention as an outsider about tendentious editing on Talk:Race and intelligence from my involvement as an outsider in the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design or at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann. Our processes of dispute resolution are based not only on involved editors applying policy but of outsiders agreeing or disagreeing in order to find consensus about such decisions - this is how I see my position in regard to Jagz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random request for help

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This is really strange - I had previously formally notified ChrisO about the above case, last week. The user even acknowledged the message positively on my talk page.[22] This was when I attempted to intervene as a neutral party, something I quickly threw my hands up over and exited - I salute you for your patience. But for seem reason Moreschi seems to have edited through protection to remove ChrisO from the list - this is damned odd.[23] Kelly ^hi! 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Apology

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

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

Bad editing

I'm sorry, Elonka, but if you're facilitating utterly tendentious SPAs who are plainly editing in bad faith (I refer specifically to Julia1987) I don't feel that your mediation is getting anywhere useful with these people running amok. I will be returning to arbitration enforcement to request a topic ban on the SPAs. I'm disappointed that you haven't taken a firmer line with the SPAs, given their consistent disregard for NPOV and their endless soapboxing. When the Arbitration Committee has clearly stated that "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited"[24], it's very unsatisfactory that users who are blatantly violating this injunction are being tolerated.

As for my edit, if you look carefully at it, I removed (1) an unsourced addition by Julia1987 ("The report authenticity was called into question and the whole affair is the subject to intensive judicial review in France.") and (2) an improperly sourced addition by Julia1987 ("However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. ") - I don't think we can reasonably use a copyright-violating non-English web video as a source. Please also bear in mind that WP:COPY requires copyright-violating links to be removed. The wording of both additions was awful and plainly POV-pushing, as usual with Julia1987. I accidentally removed a change and citation added by Canadian Monkey, so I restored that.[25]

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

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

Comment by Jaakobou:

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

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

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)