→WP:OUTING: - links |
→WP:OUTING: +link |
||
Line 343: | Line 343: | ||
==WP:OUTING== |
==WP:OUTING== |
||
{{sidebox|Related (active) discussions:<br>* [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist]]<br>* [[WP:ANI#Harassment]]<br>* [[WP:AN#Block review needed]]<br>* [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist]]<br>* [[Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Posting of personal information, when scoured from wikipedia contributions|Thread at Wikipedia talk:Harassment]]<br>---- (archived) ----<br>* [[WP:AE#Request for injunction in Pseudoscience/Homeopathy]]<br>* [[User_talk:ScienceApologist#Psychic]] (and subsequent threads)<br>* [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_7#Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ScienceApologist|CfD#SSP ScienceApologist]] }} |
{{sidebox|Related (active) discussions:<br>* [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist]]<br>* [[WP:ANI#Harassment]]<br>* [[WP:AN#Block review needed]]<br>* [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist]]<br>* [[Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Posting of personal information, when scoured from wikipedia contributions|Thread at Wikipedia talk:Harassment]]<br>---- (archived) ----<br>* [[WP:AE#Request for injunction in Pseudoscience/Homeopathy]]<br>* [[User_talk:ScienceApologist#Psychic]] (and subsequent threads)<br>* [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_7#Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ScienceApologist|CfD#SSP ScienceApologist]] <br>[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive171#Chiropractic|* WP:ANarchive#Chiropractic]]}} |
||
Please review [[WP:OUTING]] in reference to your recent edits. This sets an extremely bad example, especially for an administrator that is helping problematic editors avoid behavioral problems. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
Please review [[WP:OUTING]] in reference to your recent edits. This sets an extremely bad example, especially for an administrator that is helping problematic editors avoid behavioral problems. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
: Oh please, I haven't outed anyone. Outing is when you announce on-wiki, someone's otherwise unknown-to-wiki private information. But SA's information is well-publicized. He's openly provided it in an on-wiki interview,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zvika/Interview/ScienceApologist ] it's clearly listed at the top of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience]], and it's several other places as well.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Account_suspensions/JoshuaSchneider][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/January_13,_2008#Discussion_of_Pseudoscience_on_Wikipedia] You accusing me of violating [[WP:OUTING]] is about as silly as if I were to accuse ''you'' of outing ''me'' by typing the word "Elonka". --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
: Oh please, I haven't outed anyone. Outing is when you announce on-wiki, someone's otherwise unknown-to-wiki private information. But SA's information is well-publicized. He's openly provided it in an on-wiki interview,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zvika/Interview/ScienceApologist ] it's clearly listed at the top of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience]], and it's several other places as well.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Account_suspensions/JoshuaSchneider][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/January_13,_2008#Discussion_of_Pseudoscience_on_Wikipedia] You accusing me of violating [[WP:OUTING]] is about as silly as if I were to accuse ''you'' of outing ''me'' by typing the word "Elonka". --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:44, 10 October 2008
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Vandalism to my talk page
Hi Elonka, a user named User:Phenomenon8980 has been repeatedly blanking my talk page. I have left several messages on his/her talk page concerning talk page guidelines. He/She is angry because I redirected a character page Melanie Layton, back to Days of Our Lives because she does not meet WP:NOTE. I told the user I had no personal grievances against him/her, but I am just trying to follow rules. I have been civil, and not posted any threatening messages. This user just continues to blank my page though. Please advise. If you are the wrong person to contact, please tell me who is. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like Bish got it. Though, I see you were edit-warring with Phenomenon at the Melanie Layton article. Instead of just going back and forth like that, a better option is to file a quick AfD. Also, please read WP:BITE and WP:VANDAL#NOT... Phen looks like s/he may have the makings of a good editor who could be really helpful at the Soaps Project, so it's better to try and nurture potential talent, instead of just tussling and accusing them of vandalism. Remember, we need all the good help we can get! :) --Elonka 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again, I do need your help filling out a request for deletion. I would also ask that you again warn Phenonmenon8980 to stop harrassing me. I have been nothing but civil to him her, and am not trying to have a conflict. I am just trying to make this site reliable, while he/she continues the verbal assault. Thank you so much for all your help in this matter. Rm994 (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for all your help with this. I don't know what s/he is actually talking about, as my last post was yesterday. It seems to me that this user simply does not understand the rules regarding talk page etiquette, civility, or the rules of articles. My only intention was to help s/he understand the rules. I believe I was civil enough. I have made my contribution to the Melanie Layton talk page, and that is where it will end. I will not engage in any more debates with him/her. 3 editors have now suggested that it be merged with minor characters. It was never my intention to anger this user, simply just to explain the rules. Again...I REALLY appreciate all your help. Rm994 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Email from User:HabsMTL to User: Phenomenon8980. (email removed)
I am writing on behalf of Phenomenon8980. He has not contacted User: RM994 for any reason since they've had their conflict. Phenomenon8980 is highly upset and plans to now continue harrassing both users if he is not apologized to. It is clear that noone is interested in letting Phenomenon 8980 take the high road. 131.247.244.190 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Notification of your involvement at chiropractic
Per WP:UNINVOLVED: Uninvolved admins An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, were involved in revert wars, or are under their own sanctions for that topic area, they do not qualify as uninvolved.
Elonka has been involved in a content dispute with significant editor of this article.[1][2][3]. Special:Contributions/Elonka is not qualified as uninvolved. QuackGuru 18:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't followed the general debate on Chiropractic, but the three diffs QuackGuru provided above look very mild to me. I don't see that they show Elonka can't be neutral regarding Eubulides. We allow admins to discuss issues on talk pages, and we allow them to comment on the actions of others, without them becoming 'involved'. The three specific points you mention are (a) significant editor of the article, (b) involved in revert wars, (c) under topic sanctions for that area: are any of those met? She has not edited the article since July 8. When she does edit the article, she does scary things like insertion of square brackets. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Those diffs show Elonka address behavior at the article in question, not judging content. Come back with diffs that show her adding or removing actual content or making value determinations on content and I'll re-consider. MBisanz talk 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is being discussed at WP:AN#Chiropractic, I recommend keeping the discussion there. --Elonka 20:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've followed Chiro for quite a while as mostly a very removed bystander. But it's on my watchlist, and I sometimes scan the arguments on the talk page, and sometimes monitor edits for obvious POVs or to see if I can stop an edit war. I never even noticed Elonka there at all. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Some concern
Elonka, I have some concerns about the way that this appears to be proceeding.
- You created the Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page at 15:35, 24 September 2008
- There you list yourself at that time as an uninvolved adminstrator
- The noticeboard thread at that time was thus
- Admin noticeboard thread initiated by you at 17:14, 24 September 2008
- Your notification at the Chiro talk page was 00:43, 26 September 2008
- The discussion on the notice board at this time was thus
- To state that there was "rough consensus" at that time is, well, franky untenable:
- Of the participants who had taken place in that time frame, four had raised objections (Risker, Eubulides, Mathsci, and CrohnieGal)
- Four had made "in principle" agreement (Matthew Brown, FT2, Sam Blacketer, Guy)
- You next take part in the thread you created at 00:51, 26 September 2008 were you announce that "It looks like we're cleared to proceed."
- Yes, it's not a vote
- Yes, we do tend to take Committee member's opinions more seriously
- Yes, it still looks really really bad close a decision for which you've already made the page.
I'd ask, in light of all of the above, that you remove yourself from the list of uninvolved adminstrators.
brenneman 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, you're diffing one of my posts there, that I tweaked[6] and then deleted shortly thereafter.[7] I'm in agreement with you that it was worded too strongly, which is why I completely reworked it. The final version was here.[8] --Elonka 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the updated link. However, having looked further into this in these last few minutes (and given that you've not responded to the bulk of my message) I'll repeat the request: Please do remove yourself from the "uninvolved" list, and I'd appreciate it if you could explicitly disavow the use of any adminstratorive privledge at all with respect to that article. - brenneman 02:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- <informal> Some times I come off sounding like an officious jerk. I don't talk like that at all, but sadly for me when I type exacly what I would say... So please try and read the above in the best light possible, without there being any HINT of nastyness. </informal> - brenneman 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I assure you that I have no preference on the article content, and I am quite comfortable that I would be able to use admin tools from a position of neutrality. As for your point about the Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page, you are correct that I made it a couple days earlier. This was because I was using it as a scratchpad to gather information about the involved editors there, as I was considering what might be the best way to proceed. But I'm still not seeing why you think it might show any bias on my part? And anyway, this may all be moot, since no restrictions may be required anyway. As long as there is no disruption, and the article returns to a state of relative stability, I'm happy. :) If things stay stable for a couple weeks, we can probably delete the log page and all move along to other wiki projects. --Elonka 03:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- <informal> Some times I come off sounding like an officious jerk. I don't talk like that at all, but sadly for me when I type exacly what I would say... So please try and read the above in the best light possible, without there being any HINT of nastyness. </informal> - brenneman 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the updated link. However, having looked further into this in these last few minutes (and given that you've not responded to the bulk of my message) I'll repeat the request: Please do remove yourself from the "uninvolved" list, and I'd appreciate it if you could explicitly disavow the use of any adminstratorive privledge at all with respect to that article. - brenneman 02:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm concerned when you come to the noticeboard and appear to be asking for community input, but evidence suggests only input supporting your assertion is noted. (This is not in any way a slight on you or yours, the tendancy towards confirmation bias is very strong in most people.)
- So then, let us approach this from another tack: Almost from the moment that the thread appeared on the Adminstrator's noticeboard, concern was expressed not that the article was to become "special" but that you were to be riding herd. Strong, clearly expressed, concern. I've not seen much indication that you're taking any of that concern on board. At all.
- Of course you are comfortable that you'd be appropiately neutral. Assuming good faith and all, you'd not have put your name on the list if you weren't. (Even if I were to assume bad faith, with you cackling and rubbing your hands over the keyboard, you'd still say you were neutral.)
- I'm also concerned by evasive answers to my very direct requests. I say this in the spirit of open communication and honesty: Your responses read to me as "weaselly." (If that's a word.) But again, as my NB above states, I'm aware of the limitations of this mode of communication.
- I agree that the point is moot. Given the level of input you've already received this time (that your're apparently rejecting) w.r.t. Chiro, and reflecting on the terribly messy "recall" outcome, it would be good if this were explicit: Under what circumstances would you be willing to remove yourself from some putative future "Uninvolved Admin" list?
- brenneman 04:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Given the above and some more fun at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Followup query, it appears that your involvement in this is likely going to be the cause of unnecessary contention and drahmahz. This is highly unfortunate, as I do not personally view many of the issues raised as a very big deal. However, it is not going to be a good use of either your time or the time of those who would object to deal with the resulting discussions. So, to avoid further drahmahz in this, I respectfully ask that your remove yourself from the list of uninvolved admins and do not apply any sanctions. Any input you have regarding the article will still be greatly appreciated, though. You should also feel free to disregard this request, so long as you are aware that moar drahmahz will likely result. Cheers, and happy editing. lifebaka++ 15:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I second Lifebaka's comments. If you will just change your status to that of an involved admin, and state that you will not personally hand out sanctions, but discuss them with other admins and let them decide, then I think you will be able to contribute more constructively without getting (unfairly) attacked all the time. I think you have had to put up with too many attacks and it needs to be avoided in the future. I also think your participation will be valuable. More eyes and all.... -- Fyslee / talk 05:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- As an aside, I found the perspective given by this BBC article and this Times article very useful in cutting through the endless wrangling about whether these reviews on spinal manipulation relate to chiropractic and this review article looks like a good model for the Wikipedia article. As admins I think we meed to guide the participants on the talkpages to summarize the general meaning of the sources, rather than endlessly arguing over their particular interpretations of the meaning of isolated quotes. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking as an editor, the key question to me seems to be "How do reliable sources treat these reviews?" Since reliable sources from the general media, mainstream medical researchers and chiropractors all see these reviews as related to chiropractic, I don't agree with the argument that it would be original research for Wikipedia to treat them in the same way. I think we should just follow the sources and this seems to be what the article does. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, logged. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Notification
Would you, or some other admin, mind notifying all the people listed here of the Discretionary sanctions? I think everyone who edits that page should be notified. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm contemplating how best this should be handled. Hopefully every user who has ever edited the page need not be notified. I'm thinking of the possibility of using an edit notice to let people know that editing this article means different ground rules than editing other articles and would like Elonka and other admins input into that idea. MBisanz talk 08:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- My philosophy, built from experience in doing this on several articles now, is to not warn editors unless their behavior actually becomes an issue. This is because if an editor is doing nothing at all disruptive, it can be a bit jarring to them to get an admin-issued notice at their talkpage. They tend to react negatively, with an attitude of, "What did I do to deserve that?" And other editors who might be interested in editing the page, may be scared off if they think that if they touch the page, they're going to get what looks like a warning on their talkpage. Not to mention that if an editor is formally warned, their name can then be added to the "log of notifications" on the ArbCom page, which again, some editors regard as a negative stigma. So, my feeling is that the notification "card" is something that admins should keep from playing until absolutely necessary. This also makes it more effective. If an editor does do something which might violate any editing conditions, I think it a far better idea to just post a gentle reminder on their talkpage and point out that there are some restrictions on the article which they may not have been aware of. Then if and only if they ignore that reminder and continue doing something disruptive, should they get the big scary "ArbCom case notification" template. Or in other words, my sequence of steps is usually:
- Explain just at the article talkpage, the expected behavior. This is a general notice to everyone on the page, without singling out anyone in particular. Then if there were continued problems from an editor:
- Post a "nudge" at the user's talkpage, advising them in a friendly and good faith way about the expected behavior. Then if they ignored that:
- Post a "caution" at the user's talkpage, diffing behavior of concern, and telling them clearly what behavior needed to change, and that they run the risk of further consequences if the behavior doesn't change. Then if they ignored that:
- Give them the formal ArbCom case notification (it's a big scary template, and tends to get people's attention). This would also have the dual wakeup call, in that if I had a "list of editors" on the article talkpage, that editor's name would move up on the article talkpage from the "Other editors" section to the "Editors notified of sanctions" section, and their name is now also formally logged to the ArbCom case page as a "Notified editor". Then if they continued to disrupt after that:
- Diff the disruption to their talkpage, and tell them clearly to stop it, or there's a ban/block in their future. Then if they ignored that too:
- On the next infraction, I'd issue a brief ban, tailored to whatever it was they'd been doing. This might be a ban on editing the article, a ban on the article and talkpage, a ban from editing a section of the article (like I once banned an editor from editing the article lead and related image caption), or something else creative. A few times I've issued bans by telling editors that they were working too much on one article, so they weren't allowed to work on that article again until their contrib list had balanced out to at least a 50-50 split, to show that they were working on other articles too!
- If they violated the ban, then I'd either expand the scope of the ban, or proceed to a block (rare, but it's happened, usually in the Eastern Europe topic area). But the vast majority of editors will respect a ban. They may complain about it long and loud, but they won't violate it.
- Note that discretionary sanctions are a bit of an art form, so the above steps are a general path. I wouldn't necessarily follow each step rigidly. For example, when dealing with an obvious SPA, I might proceed to a ban very rapidly, whereas when dealing with an established editor, I might pause at one rung on the ladder and give the editor multiple good faith warnings before proceeding to the next step. But this is tricky to do, as sometimes it's good to give an editor that extra chance, but on the other hand the other editors on that article may get upset that someone is getting special treatment.
- I also found it very helpful to keep an admin log which documented each thing that was done. This served multiple purposes:
- When there are a lot of editors involved, it helps keep track of who's been notified, warned, etc.
- It's a good way to keep things transparent, so that other admins can see what I'm doing (and if there are multiple admins managing the article, so I can keep track of what they're doing too!)
- It's an excellent way to protect the admin from further charges of abuse. For example, when imposing restrictions I routinely have someone attack me a couple months later with a charge like, "OMG, she was blocking and banning people left and right!" At which point I just provide a link to the actual log, and show that no, not a single editor was blocked or banned, it was just some warnings issued. The logs might be right on the article talkpage, or might be on a subpage of the article, depending on how much traffic there was. Examples: Talk:Quackwatch#Admin log, Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Admin log. I also once created a log that was a "topic log",[9] and also the "second opinion" template: {{2O}}, so if I did something that I really wanted other admins to review, I could flag it on the log page, and then another admin could weigh in with their thoughts on whether they concurred or not.
- Lastly, other non-admins generally quickly learn to watch the log page, so they can keep track of what's going on. If there's an edit war among 5 editors and one of them gets a formal warning, the other 4 often slow down and edit more carefully, since they know that they're being watched. I call this the "cop with a radar gun" effect. People on the highway will drive way over the speed limit, but if they see a cop, everyone suddenly slows down, because they know what the speed limit is supposed to be. ;)
- Anyway, that's my advice on issuing warnings, based on hard-won experience in this arena. I'm not going to say that I do this stuff perfectly, but I figured I'd pass along lessons I've learned from doing this in the past. :) --Elonka 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- It sounded like MBisanz was talking about a message on the article talk page (which is already there), so it all works out in the end. I was imagining some sort of path like that, giving users as many chances as possible (within reason) before actually applying sanctions. Hopefully, though, people will behave and we won't actually need to do anything. That'd be ideal. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- MBisanz is also talking about a banner which would show up to anyone that clicked "edit" on the article. For example, check the banner on the edit screen of this one: So we could potentially have a banner like, "Warning: Be aware that this article has been subject to considerable disruption in 2008, and therefore the community has decided that all edits may be subject to increased supervision by volunteer administrators. As of September 2008, edits are subject to additional restrictions, as follows (list). For more information, or to ask any questions, please see Talk:Chiropractic#ArbCom restrictions."
- It sounded like MBisanz was talking about a message on the article talk page (which is already there), so it all works out in the end. I was imagining some sort of path like that, giving users as many chances as possible (within reason) before actually applying sanctions. Hopefully, though, people will behave and we won't actually need to do anything. That'd be ideal. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- My philosophy, built from experience in doing this on several articles now, is to not warn editors unless their behavior actually becomes an issue. This is because if an editor is doing nothing at all disruptive, it can be a bit jarring to them to get an admin-issued notice at their talkpage. They tend to react negatively, with an attitude of, "What did I do to deserve that?" And other editors who might be interested in editing the page, may be scared off if they think that if they touch the page, they're going to get what looks like a warning on their talkpage. Not to mention that if an editor is formally warned, their name can then be added to the "log of notifications" on the ArbCom page, which again, some editors regard as a negative stigma. So, my feeling is that the notification "card" is something that admins should keep from playing until absolutely necessary. This also makes it more effective. If an editor does do something which might violate any editing conditions, I think it a far better idea to just post a gentle reminder on their talkpage and point out that there are some restrictions on the article which they may not have been aware of. Then if and only if they ignore that reminder and continue doing something disruptive, should they get the big scary "ArbCom case notification" template. Or in other words, my sequence of steps is usually:
- I have mixed feelings on such a banner. On the one hand, it would clearly communicate restrictions to anyone trying to edit the page. On the other, it might scare some people off. Trying to put myself into the frame of mind of a relatively new editor, if I was intending to do a casual edit somewhere, and I clicked on "edit" and saw that banner, my next reaction might be, "I don't know what's going on here, but it sounds bad, I think I'll just avoid editing this page altogether." Which definitely isn't what we want! So I see that kind of a banner as maybe a last resort, one step shy of actually protecting the page from all edits. Such a banner might be useful if an article were being targeted by dozens of editors flowing through in a neverending stream. However, in the case of this particular article though, Chiropractic, the disruption seems to be being caused by a finite group of editors. Looking through all the names that have been flowing through the article and talkpage over the last 30 days, the significant edits are basically being made (or attempted) by a dozen editors. Everyone else seems to just be passing through to make AWB fixes or vandalism reversion or whatnot.
- Trying to drill down further to where the disruption is coming from, the main problems I'm seeing are:
- Excessive reverting, which can of course be addressed with a revert restriction.
- Personal attacks / incivility at the talkpage. Some of this appears to be subtle, of the nature of, "I'm keeping this article neutral, and you're a POV-pusher" (with of course charges being leveled from both sides), and comments like, "Well, I know what's best for this article, and you don't, so you should stop editing it and just let me handle things, okay?"
- A particular tactic here which concerns me, are bad faith accusations, or what I call "diff-less mudslinging". I see editor A accusing editor B of all kinds of behaviors: "Gawd, editor B is a huge problem at this article, he edit wars all the time, he never respects consensus, and he obviously doesn't know anything about this topic and shouldn't even be allowed to edit here. He's just a POV-pushing troll that we need to get rid of." I think that sometimes these kinds of no-evidence or weak-evidence charges (which are usually false anyway) can be extremely damaging to the editing environment, and we should consider banning editors who make false charges towards other editors, even if the pot-stirring editor isn't doing anything that's specifically targeted at the article itself.
- Tag teams. I am very concerned by editors who are just stopping by to revert established editors, but without engaging in discussion at the talkpage
- Disagreement on whether consensus does or doesn't exist on a disputed content issue. Especially cases of undue weight, with some editors saying, "the following information will make the article more neutral" and other editors saying, "No, it'll make it less neutral."
- For these, it's of course best to pursue dispute resolution; but
- Another problem I'm seeing at the talkpage, is editors who are trying to make declarations (as they see it) of what the consensus is or isn't. So admins can help there by:
- Ensuring that DR steps really were followed, and it's not just a case of people saying that the steps were followed;
- As admins, we could occasionally perhaps make a formal declaration of, "The consensus is (whatever)" to try and put a matter to rest for awhile (Lifebaka, since you do a lot at AfDs, this might be perfect for you)
- Identifying those editors who are being disruptive consensus-blockers. For example, if a source is being debated as to whether or not it's reliable, and it's gone through discussion and WP:RSN and an RfC and it's fairly obvious that the community feels that it's a reliable source, but there are still a few editors who just have their heels dug in and are refusing to let the matter drop, it may be time to consider whether those editors are clearly tendentious and should just be banned from the page for a certain period of time. I remember one discussion I was watching, where some editors were trying hard to find a compromise, and a couple editors who were obviously working in concert were just flat out saying, "No, no compromise is possible." In such cases, I'm inclined to simply ban any "no compromise" editors from the discussion, and let the other editors (who do feel that a compromise is possible) keep working on trying to hammer out a mutually-agreeable consensus.
- Thoughts? --Elonka 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with you on the banner. The talk page notice should do it for all the people involved in the dispute, and that way people just dropping by to revert vandalism and the like won't even have to know about it to worry about it. However, since it could become necessary, do we know how to put up such a banner? I'd assume somewhere in the MediaWiki: namespace, but I'm not sure.
- Excessive reverting and even tag teams shouldn't be too difficult to deal with. 1RR or 0RR restrictions to the edit warriors or page protection should handle those relatively easily. Spotting obvious civility issues and personal attacks isn't difficult either, so I'll just make sure I keep an eye out for the more veiled stuff.
- I shouldn't have too much trouble reading discussions and finding consensus. Usually it's either obvious there is consensus one way, or there isn't consensus. It's also relatively easy to tell when users are simply trying to hold up consensus, as they usually refuse to drop the stick and step away from the horse carcass. I'll keep my eye out to see if it's needed, but poke me if I'm missing the obvious ever. lifebaka++ 21:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, I can do a banner in the MediaWiki space, I've done a bunch of them and it is easy to do. I like the idea of 1RR and a clerked talk page. Ideally anything contested via a revert should go to the talk page, and if it is not clear what consensus is there, to an external forum like RSN. By formalizing a process like that, hopefully editors will focus on the content and not on the people making the edits. Of course, if an editor doesn't want to go along with that, a page ban will probably be the best option. Usually these situations seem to be one or two editors on each side of the debate who have The Truth, once they start following the rules or are excluded from the situation, things should calm down. MBisanz talk 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, I'm very positively impressed by your descriptions of how you handle disputes. I was reading your first long comment above and before I got to your signature, I was thinking "this must be Elonka writing this." I agree completely and emphatically with most of what you said. I have reservations, though, about the idea of banning "no compromise" editors (speaking in general, not about one article in particular). That may be the right thing to do in some circumstances, but I would suggest tremendous hesitation and discussion before doing such a thing, since it may be detrimental to consensus and NPOV: in other words, there's the possibility that the "no compromise" editors are right or at least that their POV needs to be included somehow. Lack of compromise can be a sign of lack of collaborative spirit, but occasionally it's a sign that people feel very strongly about something and perhaps their POV needs to be carefully considered. It might turn out, for example, that they feel that they've already compromised considerably and are being asked to compromise further. Banning some editors for refusing to compromise might produce a more stable article and a more civil talk page, but just possibly at the expense of producing a more biassed article: if so, that may be more of a degeneration than an improvement. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I'm extremely concerned that banning "no compromise" editors will wind up damaging Wikipedia. There is no reason to compromise with people that are here for the explicit reason of inserting support for nonsense into Wikipedia. Some people are here to describe parapsychology and homeopathy, others are here to promote it. People that are here to promote it are here to damage Wikipedia, and compromising with them would damage Wikipedia.Kww (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- And others are here to debunk it, an equally damaging activity. Compromising is necessary in many situations, but not always, since NPOV is not negotiable- as long as there isn't gang editing, consensus is a good way of determining some semblance of NPOV. Sanction any editor who flogs a dead horse against consensus, edit wars, IDIDNTHEARTHATs, or attacks others. Often you have to have several factors: if an editor is right, but there is gang editing going on, they may be "flogging a dead horse," but still be good Wikipedians. Elonka, of all people, ought to be able to deal with this. Simply "not compromising" is not a bad thing in itself, if the issue is basic. But not compromising when there is no gang editing and no basic issue is at stake is pretty bad. It is very unusual that you can't find a compromise. I've been in the position of not compromising, but that was usually when I was applying an ArbCom decision and I didn't think that further discussion was called for. There are issues with policy at Chiro on which I would not compromise: do we allow SYNTH? No. There isn't any reason to compromise on that once it is determined by consensus (which to me means super-supermajority of 70 or 90 percent) whether SYNTH has occurred.
- (ec)To agree with and expand on kww's comment: I think it's a real disservice to the work of the encyclopedia to see editors as divided into different interest groups with equal standing, who have to reach a compromise with each other in order to arrive at a finished article. This attitude encourages thinking of the project as a battlefield, at the same time it fails to consider the fundamental task of the project. The task is not to compromise between different points of view held by the editors present, but to fairly and accurately represent the topic as it is portrayed by reliable secondary sources. The consensus that needs to be arrived at is the consensus of reliable sources. To consider those who are trying to hold out for an accurate reflection of reliable sources on a topic as recalcitrant and disruptive elements who must be sanctioned or banned from editing until they are willing to compromise the quality of the encyclopedia in the interest of a "collegial editing environment," is to fail to understand the mission of the project.
- This is why I don't edit here, even though I am concerned about the abysmal quality of articles in areas where I have some background and knowledge, because I don't see the commitment to the quality of the product that I'd like to see. I don't care to work in an environment where quality, measured by how well the consensus of reliable sources is reflected in the article regardless of the wishes of individual editors, seems to take second place to making everyone happy no matter whether their purpose is to accurately reflect the consensus of reliable sources or some other agenda that would erode the quality even further. Wikipedia is already a joke in circles I frequent, and sometimes, watching what goes on inside here, I wonder if people here have simply lost touch entirely with how this looks from the outside. Outside, it's real simple; people want their information accurate and reliable and trustworthy; they don't want to be sold snake oil, and they don't really care if ensuring that the information is accurate and reliable involves hurting someone's feelings. Woonpton (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with what you say. There may be an error in thinking it is really relevant to this discussion, which revolves around putting sanctions on the article. The tone you use makes it seem as if you want reliability enforced- in other words, for admins to rule on content. There is something of that sort at Citizendium, I think. WP has its limitations. But the goal at least of the process is that negative and disruptive elements such as debunkers or wackos are weeded out in terms of content. Perhaps it doesn't work, but that is indeed the goal per the sourcing policies and NPOV etc. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ideally, Woonpton, we could have both. Generally the former is more important, but there are some areas on Wikipedia where people get so caught up in whatever battle is going on in meta-discussions or between different ideologies that they lose sight of this. That's why the ArbCom has created the sanctions for these areas, to cool it down to a point where constructive discussion and work towards the overall goal of writing an encyclopedia can continue. At least, that's how I view my purpose in this area. Martinphi above is right that it isn't my job to actually police the content itself, though; lord knows I have far too little knowledge in the area to do a proper job of that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not that simple, Woonpton. On each topic, different people have different opinions about what version of an article follows the sources properly and what version of an article is NPOV. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ideally, Woonpton, we could have both. Generally the former is more important, but there are some areas on Wikipedia where people get so caught up in whatever battle is going on in meta-discussions or between different ideologies that they lose sight of this. That's why the ArbCom has created the sanctions for these areas, to cool it down to a point where constructive discussion and work towards the overall goal of writing an encyclopedia can continue. At least, that's how I view my purpose in this area. Martinphi above is right that it isn't my job to actually police the content itself, though; lord knows I have far too little knowledge in the area to do a proper job of that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Responses to replies above: @Lifebaka: Ideally, we could eat ice cream every day and not gain weight, but that's not what happens in practice, and what I'm concerned about here is that despite the undoubted good faith intentions of the current commitment to punishing conduct violations rather than addressing violations of core policies like NPOV and RS, in practice the effect is that editors who produce reliable content are discouraged and even punished, and those pushing various versions of snake oil are encouraged and empowered. I've been watching Wikipedia for eight months, and have watched one quality content contributor after another leave or curtail activity, either because they've been sanctioned themselves, or because they don't like the trend they're seeing, or because they are burned out from trying to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia with little support, and I've watched the quality of the encyclopedia deteriorate as a result. I'm a retired statistician and research methodologist who has content knowledge in many areas, as well as good skills in reading and summarizing a body of research: it was my business in my career to read and review research literature in a number of fields, and to teach these skills to others. I would think that would be an ideal background for helping to write an encyclopedia, but I won't even attempt to edit the encyclopedia in this climate. I was going to just let this discussion go by the wayside, but seeing that Mathsci this morning has blanked his user page and talk page impelled me to speak up one more time, though I feel I'm just whistling into a hurricane at this point. Maybe he's just cleaning house, but usually when a person blanks their user page it means they're fed up. I hate to see editors of this caliber driven off a project that claims that its aim is to produce a serious, high-quality, respected, reference work.
- @Martinphi: your response invokes the same battlefield meme that I'm arguing against: the promoters of parapsychology and homeopathy vs the debunkers of same. I don't believe that's a useful distinction; it seems to cast those attempting to accurately describe and summarize reliable sources as just another special interest group that is as disruptive as those who ignore core policies to promote fringe ideas; that's exactly what I'm arguing against. As for Citizendium, I think you're probably laboring under a misconception, although Citizendium isn't at issue here. But in passing, I'd say that WP's core policies ensure (or would ensure if they were enforced) a reliable, serious, high-quality encyclopedia; Citizendium's don't, and the result is already becoming laughably evident. At this point, WP is a more reliable encyclopedia in many areas than Citizendium, whatever that's worth, although I don't see any reason to hope that that "edge" will continue to hold, given the current trend.
- I hear what people are saying about the "no compromise" issue. And I understand the concerns, though I find it difficult to share them. To quote administrator GRBerry: "Administrators are not idiots." Instead, we're going to be on the lookout for editors who seem more interested in blocking consensus, than enabling it. We are talking about areas where a compromise is obviously going to be far more useful to the project, than an editor continually beating a dead horse and refusing to budge.
- To see (other) cases where the discussion went on far past all reasonable levels, to the point where the community just looked on with ridicule, see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. So for our purposes, one of the goals of discretionary sanctions might be seen as preventing an article from landing on WP:LAME. :) --Elonka 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Elonka, I've been on both sides. I was an editor taking it way past anything. I was "blocking consensus," and relative to a majority of editors in the area I was beating a dead horse: they'd decided how it should be, there was consensus. And what resulted was the ArbCom on the Paranormal,[11] which among other things took principles from an essay I wrote for the decision. And many, many admins thought I was a POV pusher who ought to be crushed. So, what I'm saying is that it's really hard to tell sometimes. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Based on what's going on, I'm starting to think that it might be useful to ban QuackGuru (talk · contribs) from the article and talkpage, to see if that might help improve the editing environment. Perhaps a 1-week ban to start, and then see how it goes. Another alternative is to not make it a formal ban, but simply contact him on his talkpage and ask him to voluntarily avoid the article for a certain period of time. I've occasionally done that on other articles in the topic area, and editors often will accede to a direct request, without the necessity of further paperwork. Then again, making it a formal ban can be useful to keep everything properly documented, for transparency's sake. What do others think? --Elonka 04:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure this was the right place to ask this, as it seems to me it kind of invites people who don't like him to pile on? You actually want to know whether other admins are going to object, no? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, and I'm mulling over the idea of how to best handle this, since I agree that my talkpage may not be the best place for these discussions. Then again, AN and ANI might not be either. As a middle-ground, I'm thinking we may want to start up an "admin discussion" section at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log, or maybe a separate subpage altogether. Which would be a sort of "mini-noticeboard" for admins to discuss the Chiropractic article. Another possibility is to have the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which would be easier for watchlists, if admins were keeping an eye on several articles/disputes in the same topic area. --Elonka 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure this was the right place to ask this, as it seems to me it kind of invites people who don't like him to pile on? You actually want to know whether other admins are going to object, no? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Based on what's going on, I'm starting to think that it might be useful to ban QuackGuru (talk · contribs) from the article and talkpage, to see if that might help improve the editing environment. Perhaps a 1-week ban to start, and then see how it goes. Another alternative is to not make it a formal ban, but simply contact him on his talkpage and ask him to voluntarily avoid the article for a certain period of time. I've occasionally done that on other articles in the topic area, and editors often will accede to a direct request, without the necessity of further paperwork. Then again, making it a formal ban can be useful to keep everything properly documented, for transparency's sake. What do others think? --Elonka 04:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Elonka, I've been on both sides. I was an editor taking it way past anything. I was "blocking consensus," and relative to a majority of editors in the area I was beating a dead horse: they'd decided how it should be, there was consensus. And what resulted was the ArbCom on the Paranormal,[11] which among other things took principles from an essay I wrote for the decision. And many, many admins thought I was a POV pusher who ought to be crushed. So, what I'm saying is that it's really hard to tell sometimes. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just my opinion of course, but I think Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log would be a good place since I'm sure the regular editors there have it on their watch list. Plus there is a link there for anyone new to be able to go and check it out. I think it would be appropriate to have a section on the log that is open to discussions by everyone though. Are there concerns about non-administrators being able to voice opinions on this or am I misreading? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(<outdent) I also hope that any discussion of banning QuackGuru or anyone else will be based on significantly more solid presentation of evidence than the phrase "Based on what's going on". I agree that this talk page is not an appropriate forum for such discussion; I think Jehochman may be right that AE is the appropriate place. Before any banning, I would like to see the series of "nudges", cautions etc. discussed here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log is good. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, Martinphi, it's nice to see you. I have no opinion at this time as to whether Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log is an appropriate forum or not, but I think if any discussion of banning occurs there, then there should perhaps be a link to there from AE or AN or ANI. (Possibly that's already been done.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya, Elonka.
I wonder whether you might take a moment or two to review JdeJ edit's to European ethnic groups and Aix-en-Provence before making further remarks on my talk page. Her/his contributions have been unhelpful, as Dbachmann has also observed. He/she is not adding content to the encyclopedia, but seems to be playing little games. If you wish to comment on my talk page, I don't mind at all, but at least take a little time to see why I might have used the innocuous neologism "wikdrama-queen". It was used to describe somebody who is making edits to bait another editor (me) rather than for the sake of adding content to this encyclopedia. Yesterday, as you must be aware because you seem to be following all my edits, I spent 50 € on books to help in providing historical references for Provence and clearing up the section on immigration to Marseille from medieval times to the present.
To use your own words, you seem to be "following my edits like a hawk" - you seem to have my talk page on your watch list, for reasons best known to yourself. Is this in fact the case and if so why?
I very much hope that you are not waiting for some opportunity for yourself or one of your colleagues (like WJBscribe, Shell, etc) to block me, on the slightest pretext. If this is the case, I suggest you step back and try not to engage in this way with a productive expert editor to this encyclopedia. I am about to add a new article on Weakly symmetric space and I would rather that you did not arrange to have me cornered on my talk page as has happened in the past. Many thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll take a look, thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya, Elonka. On WP:AN/I you wrote that, regardless of my editing skills, I should be banned. The great mystery to me is how you, Elonka, were able to evaluate my mathematical edits? Please take as long as you want to reply. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I said nothing about a ban, though I did say I would support a block.[12] There's a major difference between blocks and bans (though I realize that the words are often confused). A block is a temporary revocation of editing privileges, enforced via technical means, which is used to protect the project from disruption. A site ban is something more comprehensive. See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks. I'm not aware of anyone proposing that you should be banned. In any case, I was pleased to see that you went back and refactored a few of your stronger comments, and that the particular dispute between you and JdeJ seems to have been resolved, so congrats on that. Hopefully the matter has now been put to rest, so there's no need for further worry and everyone can return to article-writing. --Elonka 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- JdeJ retracted his allegations of wikistalking. Can you provide diffs fotar your own allegations of repeated wikistalking that you made on WP:AN/I? I don't know what you were referring to. Are you suggesting that my mathematical edits involve some kind of wikistalking? Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- At times, perhaps.[13] --Elonka 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is not an example of wikistalking. It also directly involves you, who happened to be tracking all my edits at the time: I asked you repeatedly to desist [14][15], but instead you filed those diffs in a section marked "Exclusion" on User:Elonka/Work1.
- Do you in fact have any serious examples of "serial wikistalking" involving several users? Were the other "general" statements in the paragraph that you wrote on WP:AN/I also in fact grudges about your own personal interactions with me? Please read WP:Expert retention. Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- At times, perhaps.[13] --Elonka 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- JdeJ retracted his allegations of wikistalking. Can you provide diffs fotar your own allegations of repeated wikistalking that you made on WP:AN/I? I don't know what you were referring to. Are you suggesting that my mathematical edits involve some kind of wikistalking? Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I said nothing about a ban, though I did say I would support a block.[12] There's a major difference between blocks and bans (though I realize that the words are often confused). A block is a temporary revocation of editing privileges, enforced via technical means, which is used to protect the project from disruption. A site ban is something more comprehensive. See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks. I'm not aware of anyone proposing that you should be banned. In any case, I was pleased to see that you went back and refactored a few of your stronger comments, and that the particular dispute between you and JdeJ seems to have been resolved, so congrats on that. Hopefully the matter has now been put to rest, so there's no need for further worry and everyone can return to article-writing. --Elonka 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya, Elonka. On WP:AN/I you wrote that, regardless of my editing skills, I should be banned. The great mystery to me is how you, Elonka, were able to evaluate my mathematical edits? Please take as long as you want to reply. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) In your submission on ANI you apparently backed JdeJ's claim that I was wikistalking. However, you were heavily involved in surveying my edits to Aix-en-Provence and Marseille, because of your on-wiki and off-wiki dealings with Michellecrisp and because you discussed Fort St Jean with me (in particular your own mistranslation of Commandry for a caption). You were well aware that for some time I have statistically been one of the major contributors to these articles. You knew these articles were on my watch list, because of your dealings with Michellecrisp. Your support of the allegation of wikistalking was extraordinary. Perhaps it was convenient for your purposes - block me by any means, whether other administrators agreed or not. I would be curious to know about this apparent lapse in your memory, because, if you had not forgotten (which, in view of the way in which you couched your submission, seems highly unlikely), this would place your submission in a very poor light. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh...
Can you help me with this and this? Thanx. — TAnthonyTalk 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wheee! Well, there's something to be said for making the admins' jobs unambiguous. ;) Looks like Risker did the block, and I undid some of the other damage. Good job keeping your cool. :) --Elonka 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Open-ended question?
One of the curious things I have yet to parse effectively is something to do with your recent edit to Ōoka Tadasuke. It's fascinating that you could be able to recognize that something is wrong even though you've not invested much time in investigating a figure from pre-Meiji period Japanese history.
Expressed differently: The reasons I knew something was wrong are based in an entirely different data set than yours -- but your analysis is unquestionably on-point. Why is that? How does that happen?
I suspect that the answer to this open-ended question will focus on one of the things which makes Wikipedia important -- but, alas, the explanation is not at all obvious to me. We were editing at just about the same moment, and what you were doing was much more important than what I was doing. Do you have any thought about why that is the way it is? --Tenmei (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, that I requested citations? I don't know for sure if that information is correct or not, but it did raise a flag for me. Maybe it's just based on experience? After having worked on many Wikipedia articles (see my userpage), certain types of claims sometimes jump out as being questionable. See also WP:REDFLAG. In any case, if you do have knowledge of that section of history, I very much look forward to watching the article expand. :) --Elonka 04:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Knowledge (in general, but particularly on a place like wikipedia) is merely intuition backed up by evidence. good intuitions will take one a long way as an editor, and are maybe the best tool one has for spotting where more evidence is required. This moment of philosophy brought to you by Nabisco. --Ludwigs2 05:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Psychic
Elonka, could you look over Psychic? It might be a candidate for something similar to what you're doing on Chiro. User talk:Itsmejudith suggested I talk to you about it [16], and I responded here. I really think WP needs to have this discussion. Before, it has been all about editors actions and POV pushing. I'd like to talk about whether the ArbCom is to be taken seriously, or not. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
E1b1b article: new problems
As someone previously involved, see this note I have written to Causteau. As previously this has nothing to do with technical disagreements, but rather with block knee jerk reverts, reversing whole sets of edits without any sign of a thought process having gone on beforehand. The difference is that Causteau now uses copy and paste to do his reverts, instead of the undo button. So the reverts are hidden. One of the edits being reverted is now explained at length on the E3b Discussion Page. It involves changing the word "prevalent" to "common" (for something which is not most common but only third common) and adding some very necessary words of explanation to a footnote which should preferably be deleted. A new attempt to find a compromise has just been simply reverted again, after my attempts to communicate via Causteau's Talk Page, and the article Discussion Page. Another involves moving text out of a sub-section where it is misleadingly implying that the particular sub-section is especially Jewish. Various attempts to find minimal fixes as a compromise have been reverted wholesale. The latest has also been reverted again since attempting to communicate in two ways. These attempts to edit are clearly not technical or even controversial. Content is not the problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Images listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.
Thank you. Richard Pinch (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
A note re stalking
Two remarks on ChrisO’s page seem to require review. They were made by Tundrabuggy. The first is what appears to be a kind of ‘administrative review’ with an implicit warning. here
As you know, ChrisO is a classicist, who obtained his degree studying under one of the major historians of antiquity. Tundrabuggy’s page shows no record of having edited articles on antiquity, or knowledge of the field. Clearly from this remark, Tundrabuggy has undertaken a detailed review of ChrisO’s work on several related articles dealing with antiquity where the latter has formal qualifications, and now raises concerns about bias. Secondly, when challenged on this, Tundrabuggy admits he was ‘invited’ to edit these articles by another editor here Both the original remark, and the admission he was invited in, without apparent knowledge of the subject ChrisO has formal qualifications in, do not strike me as being free of a certain niggling spirit. It may not be, but is certainly is strongly suggestive of wikistalking, and a word of caution is, I should think, due. That they edit in I/P articles is coincidental. This overlap is not.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Turkish Language
An anonymous user continues to revert the reference number of Turkish speakers here[17]. Could you look into it? Thanks! Kansas Bear (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I added a ref tag to the infobox, and a note to the anon's talkpage. If they show up again, I recommend an immediate post to their talkpage to try and engage them in conversation, and ask them where they're getting the number from. Who knows, they may have a good source! --Elonka 15:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
There are still issues with this article, which I have noted at its talk page. In particular one of the online references you cite does not work for me. Meanwhile I make two procedural suggestions.
- When you make a single edit to essentially revert three separate edits made for three separate reasons, individually documented at the talk page and each with an edit summary explaining the reason, you choose an edit summary more apt than "copyediting".
- When you choose to criticise the conduct or doubt the good faith of another editor you do so (if you must do so at all) on that editors talk page rather than on the talk page of an article. Please recall Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- On second thoughts — so often the best — I realise the tone of those comments may come across as unduly hostile. But there are still problems with the article, and I'm still not happy at the way this is playing out. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I encourage you to participate in improving the article, by reading the existing sources, locating additional sources, and expanding what's there. --Elonka 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- And I encourage you to join me in acknowledging that personal remarks (I refer to this in particular) are not helpful in building the encyclopaedia. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I encourage you to participate in improving the article, by reading the existing sources, locating additional sources, and expanding what's there. --Elonka 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Psychic
Would you mind taking a look at Psychic. Shoemaker's Holiday seem a to be a trifle exuberant in deleting without discussion. And many thanks(olive (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
- Yup, I'm taking a look, though it's going to take me some time to come up to speed. --Elonka 03:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Pro Se archiving
While I'm sure you're trying to be helpful, I'm not sure that this archiving action was really completely a good idea. In particular, you removed conversation from today. I'd prefer you not archive my commentary quite that quickly. Kay had finally produced a halfway decent paragraph, and your archiving it away undermines our efforts to reform her. Please restore that part of your archiving, thanks. Also, please leave the time set to 14 days for the bot. In fact, why not just let the bot do this work? ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I was careful not to archive anything which had an October date on it,[18] and I doublechecked: The word October doesn't even appear on the archive page: Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Archive 3. --Elonka 04:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Your message
I will be more careful. The problem was compounded by some sort of problem affecting Science Apologist. He inadvertently reverted much further than he'd intended due to some sort of browser or WP caching issue. When the actual state of the article became apparent to him, he stated that the edits he had made were not the edits he would have intended. Bob (QaBob) 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- There was a problem with an out-of-date cache and an unresponsive software glitch on the wiki-end. I actually never intentionally reverted once! Elonka, you seem to be falling into a classic administrator trap similar to what others have warned you about in the past in your RfCs: namely you tend to create problems when none exist and ignore problems when they do exist. I think this is in part due to the fact that you aren't very thorough in your investigations of the full course of a discussions about edits. The best thing to do in these circumstances is to look at the user's contributions. In this case, I'm almost certain you did not do this because there was some very illuminating discussion between myself and other editors that happened outside of Talk:Psychic that you seemed to miss completely. To summarize, when you feel like you need to give sanction, you should follow the following procedure:
- Determine what the sum-total of the edits that appear to be controversial were. That requires taking long-range diffs from when the person first started editing the article to when the person stopped editing the article.
- Look at the talk page and see what was discussed.
- Look at the user's contributions and see if any discussion were happening at noticeboards, user talk pages, etc.
- Make a list of the other user's who were involved in the supposed "altercation".
- Repeat steps 1-3 for each user.
- When posting warnings or advisories on user talk pages, include a diff that clearly indicates the problematic behavior/actions. (The diffs you posted on my page were so ambiguous as to be almost laughable. If you had posted them to WP:3RN the report would have been closed immediately as no violation.)
- If you do this, people will be much more likely to be okay with you. You might consider getting an administrative mentor to help with this.
- ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Images
You'll recall that a month ago I gave you a list of images you uploaded which seemed problematic. In particular, four were non-free images where free images could potentially be obtained, contrary to the guidelines at Wikipedia:NON-FREE#Images 2, Unacceptable use, item 12: Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. Since you didn't dispute their status after your acknowledgment, I assume you agree with me?
- Image:KimZetter1.jpg
- Image:RyanConferido.jpg
- Image:Jerry Jacks Bobby Spencer.jpg
- Image:SteveMeretzky.jpg
In addition, some of them have no fair-use rationale. I'm giving you this heads-up since you have previously expressed dismay about having these issues crop up suddenly, but I currently see no reason not to propose their deletion. Feel free to let me know if you think I've got this wrong, I don't want to waste everyone's time on pointless multiple IFDs. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Jerry Jacks/Bobby Spencer one is worth keeping, since it shows a soap couple that is no longer in existence. That the actors are still alive, is not the relevant point, since the picture is being used to illustrate the characters, not the actors. The others were valid fair use at the time they were uploaded, but since "Fair use" is a moving target on Wikipedia, they seem to have slipped outside the envelope. --Elonka 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, so it would be valid for the character but not the actor then. Richard Pinch (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have tagged three of them as orfud. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, so it would be valid for the character but not the actor then. Richard Pinch (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Inflaming the situation
What the dilly-o is this, Elonka? Are you trying to start a fight? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for involving other administrators. In light of our dispute, I think it prudent that you stay away from Psychic and leave the administering up to someone else. I'm getting really tired of you picking on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The idea that anyone who has ever disagreed with ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or his edits is somehow precluded from interacting with him is ridiculous on its face. Don't be intimidated by personal attacks such as the false accusation that you are 'picking on' him. Dlabtot (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming out of the woodwork, Dlabtot. Always nice to see you show up to poison the well. By the by, I'm not asking anyone to stop "interacting" with me. I'm asking Elonka to stop picking on me. To claim this as a "personal attack" on Elonka is absurd on the face of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ScienceApologist
I have nominated Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ScienceApologist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like the category was more than is needed, so I went ahead and deleted it. I was not intending it as an attack, I was just trying to "fill in the blanks" on the sockpuppetry paperwork. My apologies if it appeared to be excessive. --Elonka 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm impressed, that was a classy move. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Question
Are you focusing on science editors for some reason? Because it appears you are and if so, you need to explain to the community why.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, not at all. I do try to keep an ear open for where I can help out with dispute resolution. Most commonly I either spot these on one of the noticeboards, or someone asks for help on my talkpage. I also run across them every so often via my archiving work. Archiving is one of those relaxing activities for me: I try to keep the category clear at Category:Archive requests, and when that's empty, I look around for other pages that need help. For example, I'll check Special:RecentChanges, filter by the "Talk" namespace, and then look for anything that's getting large comments (+1,###). If that page is over 100K, I'll archive it. It's often the case that when an article is in dispute, the talkpage scrolls fairly rapidly, so when I'm archiving a large page, I'll sometimes check to see if there's a dispute where I can help out as an admin. I don't feel like I'm focusing on science-related disputes, and the editors who are working in the Israel-Palestine topic area would probably agree! In any case, my contribs are an open book, feel free to look for yourself: Elonka (talk · contribs). --Elonka 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I accept your answer. But, and it's a big but (that wasn't a pun), I keep noting that you seem to always be supporting individuals who, at best, lack credibility on the project or could be worse. I'm not going to say SA is misunderstood, but he puts up with withering attacks from a lot of people--maybe he deserves some support too. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You are mentioned
At WP:ANI#Harassment. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_.28fourth.29 which Jehochman opened but which he has said you could comment further on. I plan to close this case without further comment if the supporting material does not substantiate the need for a check. The ANI thread is good background reading. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was trying to post, but it took me awhile to get through the edit conflicts! I've posted my summary now though. --Elonka 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. However, I owe you an apology, I made an unwarranted inference and jumped to an unsound conclusion. I am sorry for that. I've corrected myself on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist#results but I wanted to explicitly apologise directly as well. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was trying to post, but it took me awhile to get through the edit conflicts! I've posted my summary now though. --Elonka 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Phenom
OK, I'm assuming you've read most of today's (and recent) comments on Phenom's page, the Current Days characters page, and my sockpuppet reports. I know I tend to go from friendly and helpful to businesslike and cold quicker than is probably preferred, and I was certainly relentless in this situation, but at some point I'd be interested if you thought I should've handled this differently. Feel free to not hold back any punches ;) — TAnthonyTalk 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no, I thought you handled yourself with remarkable restraint, especially considering the quantity of abuse that was being hurled your way! So good job on that. :) I think we all went the extra mile to try and assume good faith and smooth out any misunderstandings with that editor, but sometimes there's just nothing that can be done. Looking back in hindsight on the entire situation, the main big thing that probably could have been done differently, is that as soon as there was a challenge to the redirect, we could have gone straight to the AfD(s). Other than that, I think everyone did as well as could probably be expected with that kind of situation. --Elonka 13:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Pointer to discussion about TV episode redirects
Hi, Elonka. It's been a while since the dispute about TV episode article naming, and I'm glad to see that you've been thriving on Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that there's a new (much smaller, I hope!) discussion about whether to keep the redirects that have "unnecessary" disambiguation or not — one of the byproducts of an early compromise move in that debate. The new discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Redirects, with related discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 8. Hope to see you there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
NJGW
Both yourself and NJGW seem to have stopped editing for a bit, but if you have a look at WP:AN the block looks questionable and there would be no harm in the goodwill gesture of an early unblock. If you can process that in the next hour or so it would be greatly appreciated. . dave souza, talk 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied at the noticeboard. --Elonka 21:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for unblocking NJGW, I've commented at that noticeboard. . dave souza, talk 08:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for injunction
WP:AE#Request for injunction in Pseudoscience/Homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:OUTING
Please review WP:OUTING in reference to your recent edits. This sets an extremely bad example, especially for an administrator that is helping problematic editors avoid behavioral problems. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh please, I haven't outed anyone. Outing is when you announce on-wiki, someone's otherwise unknown-to-wiki private information. But SA's information is well-publicized. He's openly provided it in an on-wiki interview,[19] it's clearly listed at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and it's several other places as well.[20][21] You accusing me of violating WP:OUTING is about as silly as if I were to accuse you of outing me by typing the word "Elonka". --Elonka 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Per WP:OUTING:
- Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia.
- If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information as this would give the person posting the information – and anyone else who saw the page – feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently to correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and the users blocked for outing should have it made clear that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.
- Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.
- This is grounds for an indef-block. QuackGuru 02:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- In the contents of User:Zvika/Interview/ScienceApologist supplied by the interview subject, it would appear that User:ScienceApologist had "outed" himself, which would meet the "unless that editor voluntarily posts this information" standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Folks, you're missing a big point here even though you're pointing to the policy yourselves: unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Ronz, QuackGuru please consider that your dislike of Elonka's work in areas that you've been involved in disputes may be coloring your interactions. This line of complaint and the rather extreme step of calling for a block, is really off base. Shell babelfish 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- The consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist would appear to disagree with QuackGuru's assessment. --Elonka 02:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was asked by an admin what the hostoric norm is on this. QuackGuru, Ronz, you're both mistaken. Elonka, you're slightly mistaken also. The historic norm is probably something like this; you may take this and use it as you will:
- Broadly speaking, it's discourteous to use a person's real name (or any other name they use) if they have indicated a preference to be known by some specific name on-wiki. If someone said "I know I posted my name before but please do not use it, and call me by my username", users are expected to completely respect that wish (possible exception: if the old name is needed to be specified, for dispute handling purposes). Likewise gratuitous mention of a name ("You shouldn't edit like that, Michael, as your school at Las Palmas might not like it") may be construed as uncivil, harassment, or a threat if that is a reasonable interpretation of the tone.
- But that is not the same as outing. Historically, a rough guideline is that a user who has stated their name on-wiki, is presumed to be fine with their name being known or referenced on-wiki (in a non-threatening manner), until they actually say "please don't".
- It is clear to me that a person does not want this type of information released. QuackGuru 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)