Jump to content

User talk:Elonka/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Odwalla

Hey, I can understand you're busy (right now I feel like the little old lady whose cat is stuck in a tree while superman saves the world), but, if you could possibly spare a wikimoment, could you look over Odwalla and contribute to its peer review. I saw your name on WP:F&D, for which you wrote that you were working on nutritional supplement info. Thanks. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reconciliation

I have said everything I felt the need to say, and personally, I consider this recall proposal resolved. Even though the result is not what I requested, I accept it and am hopeful that feedback provided by various parties will be taken on board. I encourage all the other editors here to get back to writing articles and not to nurse grudges. Jehochman Talk 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that suggestion is extraordinarily sensible, and heartily concur. IronDuke 17:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Good move, Jehochman. Would it be too much to hope that the person who filed the pending RfC might do the same thing? 6SJ7 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't fully agree. I see little evidence that Elonka has accepted the fact that her actions could be rationally perceived as being, in at least one case, a clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS, and that her implementation of 0RR could be rationally perceived as supporting WP:CIVILility against content. If I saw that, I'd agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
To 6SJ7: I believe the RfC contains some good observations and advice. I don't see a good reason to do away with it, quite the contrary.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Couple points. @ Arthur Rubin. So if Elonka is able to say, "Yes, I see how reasonable people might arrive at those conclusions, though I disagree," that would be good with you? @ Xenocidic. I think that's a pretty good idea, too. @ 6S7J: is there some other RfC I don't know about? IronDuke 21:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No IronDuke, I was referring to the RfC that you already commented in, as distinct from the request for recall on this page. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
To IronDuke: It depends on the phrasing. If she can say that some of the people who have stated those conclusions are reasonable, and suggests actions she could take to avoid the confusion, it would probably be adequate for me to withdraw my support of the desysop proposal at this time. If she doesn't do at least as much as that, I will not withdraw the desysop proposal, and would probably support an RfAr toward desysopping once the RFC is considered closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, please bear in mind the broader significance of this precedent. Many people are confident with your performance as an administrator. If you allow them to express that confidence via a reconfirmation RFA, then all reasonable Wikipedians will agree with the outcome. I have always been on the fence in that regard: I told you that privately when you asked for my conomination, and told the community publicly when I gave it. If you stand for reconfirmation I will recuse myself from voting or commenting there. What matters not so much the outcome this week, as months down the road: how will the community react the next editor who pledges to be open to recall when he or she asks for the sysop tools? How will you answer then, or the dozen that follow, if people cite your example when the candidacies fail by a few percent? Your actions now set an example. DurovaCharge! 05:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal on WP:AN

Elonka, I have posted a proposal on WP:AN for Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall and its associated pages and cats to be marked "historical", in case you want to comment. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

The meaning of "disrepute".

First, some preliminary remarks: I'm not asking for your recall. I have no opinion (and, indeed, no interest) in any of the controversial topics you are involved in. I have not commented on your RFC. I have not taken any sort of "side" in the recent debates that have raged over you.

Furthermore, I think that the whole idea of administrators being open to recall is a bit silly. I'm an administrator, and I never put myself up for recall, and never would. It seems like grandstanding to me. Some admins that I respect disagree with me, and are open for recall. That's fine. Let a million flowers bloom.

In short, had you not stood up, in public, and declared that you intended to put yourself up for recall given certain standards, I would, most likely, have absolutely no opinion on your actions. As it is, you did choose to reap the benefits of what, in hindsight, appears to be base hypocrisy. That you now claim to have changed your mind and moved the goalposts does not make your actions any less shocking. And thus, I do have an opinion: your choices and actions regarding your recall are embarassing and shameful, and you have brought yourself into disrepute. More importantly, you have cast a shadow on all of the other admins in the category, and are bringing them into disrepute as well. I presume that most of those admins are women and men of their word. If I were one of them, I would be angry at you beyond words. Since I am not, I am not angry. I am merely mortified.

You actions have, in short, damaged the reputation of Wikipedia, of Wikipedia's administrators, and most specifically of all of Wikipedia's admins who have claimed to be open to recall. I am deeply disappointed in your choices here, and hope that, someday, you will realize what you have done and, somehow, make it right. Nandesuka (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this reflects poorly on anyone but Elonka. She has now made it clear that the opposers at her RFAs were right all along. This sounds bad, but it's really no big deal. It changes nothing- the opposers already knew this, and most of the supporters don't want to see it, even now. Her disgrace is hers alone. It can't spread to me, even though I'm in the recall category, because I simply refuse to accept it. Why should anyone be angry? Recall is still what it's always been. Elonka is still what she's always been. Life goes on, and while recall may be of little practical value, it'll continue as it has for as long as there are people willing to put themselves in the category. Friday (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your promises

  • Elonka, I was truely scandalized some months ago when you broke an agreement we had made regarding a compromise wording for the Franco-Mongol alliance article, and I do think your breaking of that agreement really ruined our relation: keeping promises is just a founding element of interpersonal trust. But this time this is not just you and me: this is a promise you made to the whole Wikipedia community that you would step down upon the request of only 6 editors. Many people voted for you pointing out that the conditions for your recall were "ridiculously low". This promise thus represents a contract between you and the Wikipedia community: it is binding, and it is not even a matter of personal choice whether you ought to abide by it or not. If you do not voluntarily abide by your obligations, I trust the Community will deal with it for you anyway.
  • The turn of events leading to this recall is surprisingly reminescent of the attacks and behaviour you have submitted me to, months after months. I am not surprised to recognize many of the comments above justifying your recall. Through constant attacks, mischaracterization of my work, and on-Wiki and off-Wiki lobbying, you managed to obtain a decision against me at Arbcom, but I think these recent cases clearly reveal on a broader scale the problems of your methods and behaviour.
  • Lastly, may I ask you to remove from your user page the statement claiming authorship of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. Far from "expanding" or "writting" the article, all you actually did is cut through the 200k of research I had accomplished in more than 6 months [1], tweak content to fit your view of the subject, and then do all you could to discredit me on Wikipedia. It does not seem very fair to try to put me out of the picture, and then claim ownership of most of my work.
  • Overall, I am saddened by this turn of events, and wish we could see less conflictual, more collaborative editorial methods. Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a war zone, where some seem to take pleasure in destroying others. Most of us are here to contribute the best we can, in good faith. I would love to find a way so that we can reconcile each other, and so that now, you might also reconcile with a large part of the Community. I don't know what to suggest... Less agressivity? A gracious stepping down from your controversial Administrator responsibilities? More trust towards good-faith contributors such as me? Less implacable drive to "win" in conflicts and arguments at the expense of objectivity? Cheers PHG (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(For anyone else who is wondering what we're talking about, see User:Elonka/Mongol quickref) PHG, in no way do I wish to diminish the quantity of work which you did at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. However, at the same time, please do not diminish my own work either. I too have put in many hours, and many hundreds of edits, expanding the related articles, adding sources, and copyediting everything. I spent scores of hours doing research, tracking down reference books, and even making several visits to the Library of Congress in Washington DC to read some of the more obscure sources.[2] Other editors have helped as well, both working on the article, and participating in discussions at the talkpage, or at the resulting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance ArbCom case. All editors who work on a high-quality article, are allowed to take pride in their work. You definitely deserve credit, and when the article (someday) attains featured status, you will rightly deserve to be proud of it, as will everyone else who worked on it to ensure that it stayed in accordance with Wikipedia policies. --Elonka 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI archive reversion has rebegun

By User:Nabuchodonozor. See for example [3]. --Folantin (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking, though it looks like Verbal has already gotten most of it (thanks). Verbal, it's related to this thread.[4] --Elonka 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, no problem. I was just passing by and thought I'd have a crack. Cheers. Verbal chat 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.  :)
Folantin, the semi-protection at the ANI archive is still active through August 30, but looks like the attackers found more "sleeper" accounts (perhaps fellow students at a computer lab, or patrons at an internet cafe?), so they got the edits through that way. The AfD was attacked as well. Related accounts so far:
If you spot any others, let us know! --Elonka 17:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. I was just curious to know what was going on. Skulduggery in the world of Lebanese skiing, no doubt. Looks solved for the moment, whatever the cause. --Folantin (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of "disrepute".

First, some preliminary remarks: I'm not asking for your recall. I have no opinion (and, indeed, no interest) in any of the controversial topics you are involved in. I have not commented on your RFC. I have not taken any sort of "side" in the recent debates that have raged over you.

Furthermore, I think that the whole idea of administrators being open to recall is a bit silly. I'm an administrator, and I never put myself up for recall, and never would. It seems like grandstanding to me. Some admins that I respect disagree with me, and are open for recall. That's fine. Let a million flowers bloom.

In short, had you not stood up, in public, and declared that you intended to put yourself up for recall given certain standards, I would, most likely, have absolutely no opinion on your actions. As it is, you did choose to reap the benefits of what, in hindsight, appears to be base hypocrisy. That you now claim to have changed your mind and moved the goalposts does not make your actions any less shocking. And thus, I do have an opinion: your choices and actions regarding your recall are embarassing and shameful, and you have brought yourself into disrepute. More importantly, you have cast a shadow on all of the other admins in the category, and are bringing them into disrepute as well. I presume that most of those admins are women and men of their word. If I were one of them, I would be angry at you beyond words. Since I am not, I am not angry. I am merely mortified.

You actions have, in short, damaged the reputation of Wikipedia, of Wikipedia's administrators, and most specifically of all of Wikipedia's admins who have claimed to be open to recall. I am deeply disappointed in your choices here, and hope that, someday, you will realize what you have done and, somehow, make it right. Nandesuka (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this reflects poorly on anyone but Elonka. She has now made it clear that the opposers at her RFAs were right all along. This sounds bad, but it's really no big deal. It changes nothing- the opposers already knew this, and most of the supporters don't want to see it, even now. Her disgrace is hers alone. It can't spread to me, even though I'm in the recall category, because I simply refuse to accept it. Why should anyone be angry? Recall is still what it's always been. Elonka is still what she's always been. Life goes on, and while recall may be of little practical value, it'll continue as it has for as long as there are people willing to put themselves in the category. Friday (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your promises

  • Elonka, I was truely scandalized some months ago when you broke an agreement we had made regarding a compromise wording for the Franco-Mongol alliance article, and I do think your breaking of that agreement really ruined our relation: keeping promises is just a founding element of interpersonal trust. But this time this is not just you and me: this is a promise you made to the whole Wikipedia community that you would step down upon the request of only 6 editors. Many people voted for you pointing out that the conditions for your recall were "ridiculously low". This promise thus represents a contract between you and the Wikipedia community: it is binding, and it is not even a matter of personal choice whether you ought to abide by it or not. If you do not voluntarily abide by your obligations, I trust the Community will deal with it for you anyway.
  • The turn of events leading to this recall is surprisingly reminescent of the attacks and behaviour you have submitted me to, months after months. I am not surprised to recognize many of the comments above justifying your recall. Through constant attacks, mischaracterization of my work, and on-Wiki and off-Wiki lobbying, you managed to obtain a decision against me at Arbcom, but I think these recent cases clearly reveal on a broader scale the problems of your methods and behaviour.
  • Lastly, may I ask you to remove from your user page the statement claiming authorship of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. Far from "expanding" or "writting" the article, all you actually did is cut through the 200k of research I had accomplished in more than 6 months [5], tweak content to fit your view of the subject, and then do all you could to discredit me on Wikipedia. It does not seem very fair to try to put me out of the picture, and then claim ownership of most of my work.
  • Overall, I am saddened by this turn of events, and wish we could see less conflictual, more collaborative editorial methods. Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a war zone, where some seem to take pleasure in destroying others. Most of us are here to contribute the best we can, in good faith. I would love to find a way so that we can reconcile each other, and so that now, you might also reconcile with a large part of the Community. I don't know what to suggest... Less agressivity? A gracious stepping down from your controversial Administrator responsibilities? More trust towards good-faith contributors such as me? Less implacable drive to "win" in conflicts and arguments at the expense of objectivity? Cheers PHG (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(For anyone else who is wondering what we're talking about, see User:Elonka/Mongol quickref) PHG, in no way do I wish to diminish the quantity of work which you did at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. However, at the same time, please do not diminish my own work either. I too have put in many hours, and many hundreds of edits, expanding the related articles, adding sources, and copyediting everything. I spent scores of hours doing research, tracking down reference books, and even making several visits to the Library of Congress in Washington DC to read some of the more obscure sources.[6] Other editors have helped as well, both working on the article, and participating in discussions at the talkpage, or at the resulting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance ArbCom case. All editors who work on a high-quality article, are allowed to take pride in their work. You definitely deserve credit, and when the article (someday) attains featured status, you will rightly deserve to be proud of it, as will everyone else who worked on it to ensure that it stayed in accordance with Wikipedia policies. --Elonka 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI archive reversion has rebegun

By User:Nabuchodonozor. See for example [7]. --Folantin (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking, though it looks like Verbal has already gotten most of it (thanks). Verbal, it's related to this thread.[8] --Elonka 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, no problem. I was just passing by and thought I'd have a crack. Cheers. Verbal chat 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.  :)
Folantin, the semi-protection at the ANI archive is still active through August 30, but looks like the attackers found more "sleeper" accounts (perhaps fellow students at a computer lab, or patrons at an internet cafe?), so they got the edits through that way. The AfD was attacked as well. Related accounts so far:
If you spot any others, let us know! --Elonka 17:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. I was just curious to know what was going on. Skulduggery in the world of Lebanese skiing, no doubt. Looks solved for the moment, whatever the cause. --Folantin (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Recall subpage?

Should all directly recall-related sections be moved to a subpage such as User talk:Elonka/Recall proposal? That subpage could then be clearly referenced at the top of this talk page while the process is ongoing. As it is, the proposal has effectively overtaken this talk page, and since Elonka is continuing to edit, any uninvolved editor arriving here to discuss any unrelated editing concerns might be (more than) a bit overwhelmed by the burgeoning recall discussion...   user:j    (aka justen)   06:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a subpage at User:Elonka/Questions, where anyone who wishes to ask questions of me, may do so. As for the rest of the chatter, I have no trouble with people talking here. I am definitely listening to all of it. And I am continuing to think about all of it, especially in the context of "What will be most helpful to Wikipedia, in the longterm?" I am also thinking about it in the context of other administrators who may wish to help out in tag team areas in the future. Is there a way that the concept of recall can still be used for them, to distinguish valid from invalid concerns? It's an interesting question. --Elonka 18:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
...omg 86.44.27.232 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you still doing stuff with QW?

If so, please review this edit which is an explicit violation of editing restrictions to that article since it removes material and there was certainly no consensus on the talk page to remove this content. In fact, all I see on the talkpage is an explanation of why this content needs to be there with no one contradicting it. I would add the content back, but I don't want to revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, ScienceApologist. I happened to see your message here and hope you don't mind if I chime in with my opinion. I looked at the thread Talk:Quackwatch#What is Hufford?; let me know if you're referring to a different thread. In my opinion, the edit is not a violation of the editing conditions. The editing conditions don't forbid the removal of material. The edit doesn't remove any source. It merely shortens the material based on the source. In that thread on the talk page, I see no opinions by any third party on inclusion of the material; Shell seems to be acting in the role of a mediator. However, Ludwigs2, the other editor in this dispute, has offered a compromise position. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This was clearly a revert (without a hint of compromise or rewrite) that removed the content added here and here. FWIW, I support the latter two but would not oppose a genuine compromise.
However, I do not accept the editing restrictions which (1) at best, when evenly applied by neutral admins conversant with the article's problems and history, will result in severe article bloat (2) can be applied unevenly and used as a smokescreen allowing any admin to intentionally or accidentally skew balance that should be provided by editors, not admins. I am considering to become more active as an editor again, but will never edit this article as long as I view the editing environment (imposed without editor consensus) as a travesty of the true wiki way that is vital for the building of the encyclopedia. Avb 09:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for giving a hasty opinion above. I didn't know which of the editing conditions it was alleged to violate, and had not studied the page history to see whether it was a revert. In my revised opinion given the above information, the edit in question (by Ludwigs2 on 22:31 (UTC), 16 August 2008) violated the editing conditions in spirit by reverting all of the material added in the two previous edits given by Avb above without substituting alternative compromise wording, although as far as I know it didn't revert cleanly to an exact previous version of the article. At about the same time as that edit, Ludwigs2 also posted to the talk page in part, "I have no problem contextualizing Hufford's perspective, as long as it's presented as a credible academic opinion, not as the opinion of a 'sympathizer', 'apologist', 'advocate', 'proponent' or any other term that is there to evaluate Hufford as a person. rather than to represent Hufford's opinions." This seems to indicate a willingness to compromise, but apparently that willingness wasn't accompanied by active efforts to compromise in the actual article edit.
Since the edit in question was several days ago, I'm not sure whether any action would be taken by administrators about it. ScienceApologist, you had pointed out less than a day later that it was a violation of the editing conditions, but didn't mention the previous edits of which it was arguably a revert under the spirit of the definition in the editing conditions: "Um, your removal of content in the article is a violation of the editing restrictions in this article. Rephrase, don't remove is the name of the game." Shell, one of the uninvolved administrators watching the page, replied supporting the edit as not violating the editing conditions. Removal of content is not forbidden by the editing conditions in general. To establish that it was a violation of the editing conditions, I think the previous edits which added the material needed to be mentioned. (involved unadmin) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ouch - yes, please mention if its actually a revert - that's a completely different story than simple removal of content. While were at it though, should we have a discussion at Quackwatch about the editing conditions and whether or not they need some changes? Shell babelfish 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Peace
For constructive critcism of me, and for resolving a dispute at Law of Palestine. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and good luck at resolving the remaining issues there. I'm confident that with everyone continuing to discuss things in good faith, we will end up with a stronger article.  :) --Elonka 00:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A little something for your efforts

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Awarded for your participation in the dispute over at Talk:Medicine. Your opinion and your ability to handle disputes is really, really appreciated. Cheers :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


It's been far too long since I've given out a barnstar! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck getting things straightened out. Perhaps someone could take the initiative, and make the necessary WP:SUMMARY merge of that one section? --Elonka 00:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with a Polish user?

Hi Elonka,

I found you from the Polish noticeboard. We've been having an issue with a very young Polish user over at 2012 Summer Olympics (and the talk page. Attempts to explain in English have failed. There has been a notice put up at ANI which summarizes the situation. Would you be able to help, or find another Polish-speaking admin who can help, explain to this young girl why she is in error, and help her understand how to interact with Wikipedia in a constructive manner? Thank you. Prince of Canada t | c 09:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Prince of Canada t | c 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tea vee

Hello! Last night my wife and I were watching the NOVA scienceNOW episode on Kryptos when I practically jumped off the couch and exclaimed, "Hey, I know her! She is a fellow admin on Wikipedia!!" You totally rock!! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks.  :) I've been getting good feedback on it (and traffic to my website has quintupled), but since Wikipedia is one of the primary online communities that I participate in, it's nice to hear that someone on the project enjoyed it.  :) --Elonka 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dragon*Con

For anyone watching this page who may be in Atlanta over the Labor Day Weekend, I will be at the mammoth Dragon*Con convention, giving talks on subjects from the Knights Templar to Kryptos, and on one of my favorite topics, Wikipedia! I'll probably be speaking in multiple tracks, but most of my talks will be in the Electronics track, so check the schedule for exact times.[9] Any fellow Wikipedians who attend, please stop by and say hello! I'd love to meet you.  :) --Elonka 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I won't be able to be there, but don't forget to talk about the Mongols! Cheers PHG (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Elonka, I have filed a request for appeal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I'll be looking forward to your support. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my statement, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by Elonka. --Elonka 00:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request you look at a re-started revert war

Hi Elonka. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#New_Causteau_edits

You helped out before and very similar problems are arising again. After including some small updates from a new article in the literature I've been double reverted again, once again mostly, it seems, on the principle that edits can annoy others, and not on any principle of trying to make the article better. I am not going to act further for the time being but I think it is indisputable that the article is suffering. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, unfortunately your fairly general advice is being interpreted by Causteau as you taking his side, and he has seen that as a signal to start reverting again. I had held off, but I believe at this stage it is most correct to at least reverse those mass reverts until real discussion takes place. I don't know what else to do. It surely can't be the intention that whoever dares to be most aggressive can get their way. I don't think general advice was what was called for to be honest. We need a third person to read the basic type of discussion and make sure both parties are honestly involved in constructive discussion. I do not think they are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's rubbish. Don't believe a word of it, Elonka. What I did, in fact, do was restore the page to the way it was yesterday when you thankfully intervened and before Lancaster's unilateral edits of today. Please have a look at the page history and see for yourself that this is true. Causteau (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
When Causteau says "yesterday", he means he took out some edits I had done yesterday, but left in his from yesterday. There is no discussion of which if any edits involved the matters which were being discussed on the talk page (after I asked them to be). Elonka, I want to point out that the above post by Causteau, plus many others, explain that he choses to interpret his actions as been according to explicit instructions you gave. In particular I mean that I am apparently now not allowed to edit the article anymore in any way, until, well, I do not know what, and secondly, that the reverts by Causteau of other people's edits are judged to be OK, and thus the fact that Causteau's reverted version is now the only version is something you chose and demanded. Given the importance of the way your name is being used here, I believe you now need to state clearly whether this is correct or not. I don't believe that this was your intention at all, but even if it was, I don't think it is an admin's job to give one editor power of an article in this way. Right? In any case I feel that you have to at least reply to the extent that you are now being cited as an authority for very questionable editing. We need more than a "go watch the olympics" or "make sure you cite sources" I am afraid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see if you can agree with this approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Intertested_people.2C_please_check_if_we_have_agreement_on_the_following --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I note your warning on my personal talk page. I appreciate that you are taking a limited approach to the questions raised. But obviously what I believe is happening makes your general advice unhelpful. If you really think you've made a lot of effort and that your interlocutor is refusing all rational discussion, while constantly playing chicken with reverts, what would you do? It is nice to speak to people neutrally, I know. But let's just say for the sake of argument that we had hit a wall? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I have tried to summarize the problem as it now stands. Can you please look at the bits in bold and comment? We certainly need a third voice on these issues, because the article is now dysfunctional. If it would be better to follow another procedure to get such advice, then please let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you mention this example

Elonka, I want to remark on an aspect of your comments on the debate that I think needs caution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Edit-warring where you write:

The next editor to add information that is not accompanied by a source, could also be looking at a block. For example, this sentence is uncited: "Nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1 (defined by M35)." Where is that from? Which source verifies it? Please add an inline citation to it. Thanks, --Elonka 15:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case you are digging up old test, agreed previously, and saying that this needs to be improvement. I have no problem with someone doing that. Improvement is good. But why do you mention this in such a context? There are so many things that can be improved. On the other hand to remove this correct statement would make the article worse. I am confused by this example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just on the practical side anyway, the sentence you are worried about is just a repeat of a comment made in the introduction which is referenced to "Cruciani et. al.'s 2004". Any advice would be fine, but for the time being I am not editing the article. Causteau will revert anything I edit, and he claims you will back him up on that, which is in a practical way what has happened so far because you asked me to stop reverting, and I did so, meaning that Causteau has reverted back to a version that deletes all my recent edits and leaves his in. His own words make it seem certain that he would not have done this if he did not feel he was doing what you specifically wanted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Elonka/Questions

I hope you don't mind, but I've unofficially "clerked" a bit on the subpage. Since there have been a couple of times where other editors would like to have commented on the on-going discussions, I moved it to a user page, so that the talk is now available for those comments. I've also moved some of the comments from other editors out of Wsiegmund's section and either into that editor's section or to the talk if that editor didn't already have a section themselves. Feel free to undo anything you don't agree with :) Shell babelfish 04:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks.  :) Also, FYI, my wiki-time is going to be curtailed a bit this week because of my upcoming tradeshow. I'll still be able to check Wikipedia every day, but I won't be spending as much time here as usual. So if you see anything else that needs clerking, please feel free. --Elonka 17:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Most academics are busy in real life, yet they probably actively participate in this encyclopedia at a level far below their special expertise. If Elonka has problems in her personal life that make her own participation in wikipedia difficult, now might be a time to scale down her activities. She seems to have had serious problems in her interactions with established academics. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have some constructive criticism for Elonka? --Fat Cigar 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Tag team

Wikipedia:Tag team, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Tag team during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Risker (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the template, Elonka. I don't do a lot of nominating for deletion so tend to rigidly follow the instructions. It occurs to me now that I could just as well have left you a more personal note. Risker (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Elonka. It seems like you are going through a tough time on wikipedia at the moment. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for volunteering so many hours for our project. Your contributions as both editor and administrator are appreciated. I regret that political firestorms occur so frequently around here, and that great wikipedians get unwittingly involved in them. I sincerely hope that things go your way, and that if they do not, that you will continue to contribute to the project and community anyway. Sincerely, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with Jerry. You have made a tremendous contribution to the project, and I know there are many who greatly appreciate your commitment.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.  :) --Elonka 02:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b #2

Hi Elonka. Just dropped by to thank you for your efforts at re-focusing the discussion to the actual article as opposed to the editors. I have just one more favor to ask of you: Could you please remove Lancaster's comments in the two new sections titled "Starting fresh" and the gratuitous "Request for comment"? They are but the usual personal attacks, and serve no purpose other than to point fingers and misrepresent the issue at hand and my actual edits. One of them even at one point quotes a comment I made during our long-resolved conflict from months ago, back when I was a new user and which you also oversaw! I think you'll agree that that's not really productive, especially in the wake of your latest directives to keep it short, civil, and to the point. If these sections should stay, I will be forced to respond to them in order to defend myself against their misrepresentations, and Lancaster will naturally respond to my reply, and I will once again have to wade through more untruths, etc. ad nauseam. I've already written but not yet posted a response to one of these new personal attacks. I really don't want to have to write a response to the other since that'll only prolong the agony and thwart our latest progress logged in the section titled "Things I'd like to edit if I could edit without being reverted". Please let me know if we can really start afresh. Best, Causteau (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, Elonka can not just go and delete comments at the request of an editor in order to save the editor from being "forced" to do something wrong. You still misunderstand, and your misunderstanding keeps sending you the wrong way. You have to work with anyone else who wants to edit. Admins are not police or judges. True personal attacks as per Wikipedia are not the same as hurting someone's feelings or mentioning their names. If those things were not allowed, all editing would stop.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Response by MBisanz

Elonka, I was expecting it to be self-evident that someone involved in a dispute over a particular policy should avoid editing the very policy on which they are to be measured. As you, yourself, told Jehochman, [10] it is highly questionable' behavior to edit an article to which one has such a significant dispute resolution COI. I'd say a key policy by which desysoppings are judged by adminship is a "No Go" area for someone who just finished a recall process and has an RFAR pending for things related to adminship and recall.

In any event, I stand by my UNDO, your edit changed the order in such a way as to move the parts on removal for abuse and emphasis on community involvement to the bottom and the parts on uncontroversial desysopping to the top. You should know that WP:RECALLME is at best an essay (even though it is not tagged) and WP:ADMIN is an official policy, usually we work by consensus with such things and discuss radical changes before doing them. Two people talking at a random user subpage does not appear to fit that bill. Happy editing. MBisanz talk 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you revert to an earlier version of the policy, since that entire section was added the day before by User:Hiding, without consensus as you define it. --Elonka 16:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Would like to read the full report, but, alas, cannot

I have read with great interest the report of the Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars and would like to read some of the details referred to in the report. But, alas, in order to get to that detail (for example, wg:Reconciliation projects, wg:Article paroles and so on), I need a password. Is there any way you can get me one? I promise to be a nice boy. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the inquiry.  :) The Reconciliation Projects information will turn into a full public page at some point. The current draft is here, if you'd like to read it: User:Elonka/Reconciliation projects. I'll have to check on the Article paroles, as I don't recall offhand what was discussed there, but I'll see if I can post a summary at some point. --Elonka 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Anything else you can give me access to will be appreciated. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Shahaf

Hi Elonka. There's been some discussion of your role subsequent to your reminder here. Hope you are doing well. Please comment at your, well, leisure. HG | Talk 21:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes, those copious amounts of free time, eh?  :) Thanks for the note, I think the response was already pretty well covered by admins Jayjg and PhilKnight, but I went ahead and posted something to agree with them. --Elonka 02:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

Hi there!

I do not understand you. Earlier you have blocked me for two weeks because I made so edit summary as Schcambo at Bratislava.[11] [12] [13] Add to the fact that Schcambo is not a inexperienced editor because he is native speaker English, and he is on the wikipedia since 2005. According to your opinion my edit summary was disruptive, bad faith assumption and personal attack. I am not naive speaker English and I am not so old editor as Schcambo. After this you only recommended an essay for him. Is it logician?Nmate (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nmate.  :) I agree that what Schcambo (talk · contribs) did, was wrong. He should not be reverting other editors and saying that it is vandalism. The reason I did not block him, is because I had not warned him first. I do not like to block or ban anyone unless first I give them warnings. That way they know that they need to change. We have a policy for administrators, that we must warn first before blocking. See WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings. If Schcambo continues with bad behavior (which I hope that he will not), please let me know, and give me a diff of what he did. So far though, he has not edited anything since I warned him. --Elonka 17:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Law of Palestine

Can you take a look here, all the way at the bottom of the thread. All four editors who have ever edited the article or the talk page (excluding you) have either agreed or are likely to agree to a new compromise on the article title. Assuming that we do get actual unanimity, I think we can move the article without WP:RM, but I just wanted to check with you first. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no preference on article title, so if all interested parties are unanimous, I would say congrats, and yes, it's probably fine to be bold and proceed without RM.  :) Worst that can happen is iff the page gets moved and someone new objects, in which case you could either try to discuss a bit more, or move the page back to its original title and try the RM method instead. --Elonka 01:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and thanks for all your help with this article. I would give you a barnstar to go along with Bearian's, except I don't give barnstars.  :) 6SJ7 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR notification

Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

In re Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elonka:
For the record. — Athaenara ✉ 04:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

meat puppet accusation

Hi, you probably say the accusation of being a meat puppeter of Fat Cigar. After not receiving any clarification from DreamGuy after a number of days, I have taken it to "Arbitration enforcement". This is mostly about DreamGuy's accusation than about the accusation itself, but you should at least know about it all the same. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 04:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have responded to your comment about ChrisO at User talk:Jimbo Wales. For the sake of transparency, if you make any remarks about ChrisO in such a forum, I think you should disclose the history so that observers do not come away with a false understanding. I have also responded at User talk:WJBScribe to comments made by that user regarding both of us.

As I have said above, I want this drama to end, but I will respond anywhere on wiki that my actions are called into question, and I may also respond to comments on any page previously on my watchlist, such as User talk:Jimbo Wales. (This page is not on my watchlist.) Jehochman Talk 07:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon consideration, I have decided to file for arbitration. See WP:RFAR. Hopefully structured dispute resolution will resolve any outstanding matters and help minimize disruption to Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 07:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the RfAr has been archived.[14][15] Now please, can you go find something else to do on Wikipedia, that doesn't involve me? You keep saying that you are going to disengage,[16] and then you go poking into something else Elonka-related. Looking at your contribs, Jehochman (talk · contribs), the vast majority of your efforts over the last several days are Elonka-related. Your contrib list looks like the Elonka-channel, 24/7, all Elonka, all the time. You are being told clearly to stop this,[17][18] so please, find some other hobby? --Elonka 08:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeated BLP violations at Nahum Shahaf

Elonka, I thought you might be interested to know that Nickhh has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANickhh&diff=235071754&oldid=234196605 removed your notification] of the ArbComm I-P discretionary sanctions from his Talk page, calling it "spam" from an "involved admin". He then proceeded to re-insert the BLP violation that you had previously removed from Nahum Shahaf, despite your clear "reminder". Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Look at the first 20 or so oppose votes and I think you'll understand why getting those residual sanctions lifted is easier said than done. Everyking (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If arbitrators are opposing your adminship, that is a strong signal, especially as it is arbitrators who would be tasked with removing adminship, even if you succeeded. I recommend focusing on the arbitrators' concerns, and addressing them, before trying for adminship again. Note: In no way does this diminish respect for your other many positive contributions to Wikipedia. I am just not comfortable supporting anyone for adminship, if ArbCom has already formally expressed concerns about that editor. So first get the ArbCom restrictions lifted, and then try again. --Elonka 08:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I have tried, many times. There are several arbitrators, along with several influential former arbitrators, who have strongly negative feelings about me due to disagreements from several years ago, and getting past that hurdle has so far been impossible. I urge you not to assume that their concerns are legitimate simply because they are arbitrators—look carefully at their arguments, along with the rebuttals on the nom talk page. Everyking (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I shall take another look, to triple-check. --Elonka 08:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b

Hi Elonka, Lancaster is trying to forcibly insert a new edit into the article without us first agreeing on it. He is extremely rude and condescending and unconcerned with not only Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks, but also those well-thought out guidelines you proposed yesterday. Please have a look. I think he is taking advantage of your absence by trying to turn things personal. Best, Causteau (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Elonka. Thought you'd like to know that Lancaster is now reverting the article under an anonymous IP address. Could you please drop by and insist that he play fair and post under his regular account? Best, Causteau (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I know you're right Elonka, and I apologize. I will certainly try and tone it down on my part. All I ask is that you demand the same from Lancaster. Causteau (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Yelling at each other just makes both of you look bad. I recommend that you take a break and work on something else for awhile. Looking at your contribs, Causteau (talk · contribs), Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs), both of you are much too focused on this one article. Remember, there is no deadline. Spend time working on something else, or take a break from Wikipedia altogether. Turn on the TV and watch the Olympics. I'm looking forward to the closing ceremonies!  :) --Elonka 18:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright Elonka. I tried. I honestly tried to deal politely with this guy, but he is relentless. Lancaster has just posted yet another personal attack and this time once again under an anonymous IP address (and only a few minutes before he posted under his actual account). That abusive paragraph of his that you deleted? Well, he has gone and composed yet another one where he does nothing but discuss me -- disparagingly of course. I'm beginning to think that he seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia's policies only apply to me but not to him despite your expressly having given him a final warning. I'm also certain he's attempting to goad me into lashing out so that I'm punished and he gets of scot-free. I've had it with this guy. Please intervene. Causteau (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but I think the above is a very good example of the problem. I do not know if it can help to comment on it, but I don't know if anything can so...

1. "Lancaster is trying to forcibly a new edit into the article without us first agreeing on it". What's strange about putting in a new edit without prior permission? But, this is the problem: Causteau finds it strange. That is what keeps coming up. It shocks Causteau time after time and Causteau feels that anything is justified to counter such arrogance. The article has a problem because of that.

2. "Thought you'd like to know that Lancaster is now reverting the article". But these are reverts of reverts. OK, I also tell my kids I don't care who started it, but the fact is that it should be possible to edit a Wikipedia article without asking the permission of someone who appointed themselves as its owner.

3. "I'm also certain he's attempting to goad me into lashing out so that I'm punished and he gets of scot-free." I just don't see what my aim would even be in such a scenario. My actions are in any case so boringly consistent - I want them to be comprehensible - that to be tricked into some silly direction by them would be pretty dopey. If Causteau had just a little self control he could "goad" me very easily into another type of situation. I would not mind being goaded into a better place. Better is better, even if someone else helped me get there.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "Lancaster is trying to forcibly a new edit into the article without us first agreeing on it". What's strange about putting in a new edit without prior permission? But, this is the problem: Causteau finds it strange. That is what keeps coming up. It shocks Causteau time after time and Causteau feels that anything is justified to counter such arrogance. The article has a problem because of that.

What's strange about it is that we are in the midst of an edit war in case Lancaster hadn't noticed. It also runs counter to Elonka's own recommendation that we discuss things before implementing them into the text. Causteau (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

2. "Thought you'd like to know that Lancaster is now reverting the article". But these are reverts of reverts. OK, I also tell my kids I don't care who started it, but the fact is that it should be possible to edit a Wikipedia article without asking the permission of someone who appointed themselves as its owner.

No they are not reverts of reverts. Lancaster first reverted my slight modification of his first flurry of edits. I did not start with a full revert as he has been insinuating all along -- he did. But enough he said she said. I know that bugs you Elonka. Still, I ask you, how exactly does one not defend oneself against these constant and patent misrepresentations? Causteau (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3. "I'm also certain he's attempting to goad me into lashing out so that I'm punished and he gets of scot-free." I just don't see what my aim would even be in such a scenario. My actions are in any case so boringly consistent - I want them to be comprehensible - that to be tricked into some silly direction by them would be pretty dopey. If Causteau had just a little self control he could "goad" me very easily into another type of situation. I would not mind being goaded into a better place. Better is better, even if someone else helped me get there.

Lancaster's edits are indeed unfortunately boringly consistent, and this is precisely part of the problem. When expressly told to refrain from engaging in personal attacks and abusive behavior, he persists anyway. It's funny how he deigns to mention "self control" when it's his own inability to contain his aggression that is preventing this matter from resolving itself. Causteau (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello again Elonka. Please visit the talk page. Lancaster has just written what has got to be his most absurd and long-winded series of personal attacks yet. You specifically requested yesterday that he not discuss me but instead try and resolve the matter at hand. Instead, he has posted not one, not two, but three lengthy diatribes designed to get other editors to turn against me -- this same guy who didn't even have the decency to admit that he inserted unsourced material into the text when I literally quoted him as having done just that! You clearly warned both of us one final time not to engage in personal attacks. I have respected your wishes and not violated that directive. Lancaster yet again has not. He has named section headings after me, headings which he knows full well appear in the table of contents at the top of the talk page (and which you in the past have removed; I appreciate that); he lied about my having used an anonymous IP address like he himself has on at least two separate occasions; he keeps accusing me of having initiated the reverting when this link to the history page clearly shows that he made the first full revert of my modification and rewriting of his initial flurry of edits; he has deliberately misinterpreted my plainly-stated recommendations on what specific changes we ought to implement as a green light to carry out a full revert of the article as it stands despite your expressly having forbidden this; he constantly quotes me out of context and employs straw man arguments rather than respecting what I did actually say in order to give the impression that I hold views that I do not hold (e.g. he just started yet another new section on the talk page where he claims among other things that "Causteau felt the term "sub-Saharan" Africa to be racist" when what I did actually do was correctly point out that his insertion of the term sub-Saharan E-M35 into the text is wrong because it "has a racial connotation, a connotation which, like it or not, is implied nowhere in the study"!); not to mention that he is incredibly condescending and rude. To top things off, in his latest post, he has once again named two section headings of his personal attacks after me (e.g. "Causteau's reading of one sentence, and his general use of innuendo"). You warned both of us to behave but the rules can't apply to just one of us. I have not pulled any of those underhanded, ill-intentioned stunts you told us not to engage in and which Wikipedia's policies specifically forbid. Please do something about this. It's high time Lancaster understood that Wikipedia's policies apply to him too and not just to those who have the audacity to challenge the veracity of his edits. Best, Causteau (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I am reviewing the situation, and my guess is that some other admins are taking a look too, but the situation is complex, and the more that both of you keep reacting to each other, the more difficult that it is to sort out what is actually going on. If you feel that "something must be done", please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Request assistance at the talkpage of a relevant WikiProject, request a third opinion at WP:3O, file an article request for comment. But I truly think that if you can just rein in the horses, and avoid the article and its talkpage for a day, that it will help matters. That will both make it easier for other editors to make sense of the discussion, and it will give you (both of you) a chance to cool down and try to re-focus on the article instead of each other. Another essay worth reading is WP:MASTODON. My strong recommendation is to just stop reacting to everything that the other person says, and just work on something else on Wikipedia for awhile. Let the dust settle. No major calamities are going to occur in the world, because the article uses one abbreviation or the other. Wikipedia has over two million articles, surely there is something else that would benefit from your time and attention? Try clicking on Special:Random a few times, I usually find something I want to work on (or at least tag as needing sources) within 5 clicks.  :) Anyway, I'm still reading, and if no other admin steps in, I'll try to see what I can do. Do your best to be patient. Articles eventually sort themselves out in the longrun.  :) --Elonka 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, I think you really need to consider that the article is now frozen and it will not fix itself unless Causteau changes, but he won't do that because, by his own account, he believes and hopes that he can gets admins to take his side. Specifically he claims or implies to have you behind him, justifying the current version of the article which is a full revert. You have to say whether you really do support that full revert or not, and then you have to say whether you really have forbidden anyone from editing without first getting agreement from Causteau, which is how he is interpreting the situation. It should be easy to say yes or no. Please also note that for several months this article has been a stalemate with intermittent conflict when edits happen: one person making edits and one person shooting them down. The greater public of people interested in this subject know about the situation and I think they just see it as a lost cause now. I've done a lot of the work involved in building up this page, which is not good, but the other point about that is that it takes enormous energy to struggle to get anything into the article, and why should I bother? You imply that people can always comes back to it after a fight dies down, well no that is not how it works. I do not have infinite time available to waste on hitting my head against a wall. Everyone knows that Causteau will act the same way every time someone makes significant edits. That's because he thinks there are Wikipedia powers behind him that he is following. While this illusion remains, this problem will keep getting worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
See what I mean, Elonka? I have not sought this guy out -- he sought me. When I mention something regarding his edits, I prove it with actual difs. Lancaster cannot do that because the facts are not on his side. All he can do is cast aspersions on my edits, misrepresent what I've actually written as I've demonstrated above, and try and get you to believe that this is an issue of me being possessive over the page... when almost the entire article was written, and re-written, and re-written again and again by Lancaster himself! The categorizing, the actual text, the info box -- all dictated by his edits. Yet he blows a gasket when someone rightly points out that the Henn study he quotes doesn't once mention the "sub-Saharan E-M35" he inserted into the text or label what it specifically identifies as E3b1f-M283 as E-M293 as he has also done? It's all just absurd; utterly preposterous. Causteau (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Causteau, I just make my opinion clear in case it helps and in case it was not yet known: Wikipedia has one basic rule and that is the articles should be as good as they can. All other guidelines are subservient to that. That's the main difference between us. I work primarily according to that one rule and I do not like playing around with wikilawyering. Wikipedia is not a country with a legal system, police, etc. All your actions seem to be based on a false idea about what edits should aim at, and what "rules" there are and how they are enforced. Secondly, I have myself not only admitted (you see it is negative) but in fact pointed-out several times that yes, I do the most edits on this article. You don't. You only stuff around with wikilawyering aimed at making editing difficult. So thank me, and let me work. Other people should be helping more, including you. Writing and re-writing and re-writing is what you are supposed to do. It is stunning to see you complain to Elonka several times that "he is posting something again" as if that in itself is a valid complaint. Without me the article would be worse than it is. M293 would not even been in the article at all. Causteau, answer a straight question for once: should we remove all my edits from the page? If not, then please don't complain about the the mere fact that I work hard on the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide verifiable, sourced information just like any other encyclopedia -- something Lancaster has not done and which is precisely the whole cause of the problem we are presently mired in. I can understand why he should feel the need to once again engage in ad hominem since he can't, after all, deny any of the things I have written and proven above with actual difs. Note how he once again attributes a statement to me that I have never made: "he is posting something". I have not told Elonka any such thing. What I have done is written in the paragraph above dated 15:15, 24 August 2008 that "Lancaster has just written what has got to be his most absurd and long-winded series of personal attacks yet", which is indeed true. Note how he also tries to portray my defending myself in the paragraph above against his baseless accusations in the paragraph preceding it as me merely complaining "about the mere fact that [he] works hard on the article"! What, I ask you, is that "work" worth if it's not even supported by the actual source it references? And would the article really have been any better without someone having come along to correct it with information that is actually sourced? I don't think so. Causteau (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You find something of poor quality in an edit of mine then explain it on the discussion page, and be prepared to discuss with me, not to start setting up a law case while you write to admins to come and "intervene" on "this guy".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in but I was just reading this little Soap Opera and was just amazed. Clearly you two are literally hung-up on each other. You don't need nor will benefit from an admin to sort this out. You are both squabbling like kindergarteners. I assumed you were both scientists based on the material you are apparently editing. Perhaps your edits are more like science-fiction? Time to kiss and make up. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User page claim

Hi Elonka. Regarding this: [19]. I do not at all deny your intense involvement and contributions to the Franco-Mongol alliance article. It is just that what you claim on your user page ("Of the articles that I've written or expanded, the ones that I am most proud of include: ...Franco-Mongol alliance...") is actually untrue: you did not expand the Franco-Mongol alliance article, you actually shrunk it by two-thirds [20] from its full version [21]. Neither did you write it: you essentially tweaked the existing material which I had compiled, or at best "rewrote" parts of it. I am only asking that the description you use on your user page be truthfull. How about: "I strongly contributed to the Franco-Mongol alliance article"... this still manages to be true and values your contribution. Please don't bend the truth, and please keep your promisses [22] :) Cheers PHG (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the statement that I "wrote or expanded" the article, considering that I rewrote it from top to bottom. Which does not mean that I wish to diminish any of your own efforts: Much of your own work on the article was excellent, and well worth keeping. As for other matters, rather than re-discussing things here, I think a better location for this discussion is in the ongoing thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 16:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, you might well feel comfortable with your User page claim, just as you seem to be comfortable with not keeping your recall promisses and betraying the trust of the Community. But the point is not in being personnally confortable or not. The point is about truth and honesty, i.e. making true statements which are not misleading, and keeping promisses you made. Why don't you just write in your User page what you wrote above, i.e. that you "rewrote" large parts of the Franco-Mongol alliance article? Claiming you rewrote parts of an article is very different from plainly claiming that you wrote it. Cheers PHG (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
PHG, let it go. That's a period after "go." --Abd (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b #3

Hi Elonka. I hate to bother you again, but we have yet another problem. I woke up this morning to find that Lancaster had made sixteen edits on the page without even so much as giving me fair warning let alone discussing them over with me. Despite this, I did as you recommended and did not revert any of his edits. Instead, I looked at each and every one of them to see just what changes he had implemented, and found only one edit lacking. Specifically, it contained a sentence on the origin of E1b1b1 that Lancaster himself had tagged as unsourced only a few hours earlier. I therefore replaced that unsourced sentence with one I paraphrased directly from the ISOGG website -- a website Lancaster himself has often referenced -- and I included an inline citation to let other editors know that the material was now sourced. However, for whatever reason, Lancaster reverted my edit! He claims that I am engaging in page-owning and that I did not discuss my edit with him -- the same guy that made sixteen consecutive undiscussed, unsourced edits blows a fuse when I make a measly three (one was sourced, and the other two ([23], [24]) we both agreed on on the talk page). I explained to him on the talk page that you allowed us to edit as long as our material was sourced, and that he therefore had no right to revert my fully sourced material. I also pointed out that I fully explained my changes in the edit summary, and if he had no reason to believe that my material was factually inaccurate, then he had no business reverting it as it was sourced. His response was that I was somehow "misusing" my source, ISOGG -- the exact same source he himself has repeatedly referenced! I explained to him that ISOGG was a reliable source per Wiki policies, and that he still had no right to revert my sourced edit. This apparently didn't go over well with him because he just re-inserted the exact same material as before, only this time he tacked on a citation behind it. The trouble is that I looked into his source that allegedly supports his statement ("However, the fact that Haplogroup E1b1b's parent E clade is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E1b1b first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration"), and it does not support it anywhere. He has now also added to the article a whole bunch of drafts of paragraphs we didn't even agree on, as well as tacking on a fact tag behind my fully sourced sentence that any person blessed with sight can see was taken directly from the ISOGG website (please confirm this for yourself: "However, E1b1b1 is also thought by some to have evolved in the Near East and then expanded to the west -- both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea"). I'm not sure what to do at this point. I've already tried reason, debate, politeness, and none of them seem to work. Causteau (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hey Elonka, that guy is editing again. Come and do something so I do not have to think!" :) (paraphrase) Point is you are rude, you work without trying to understanding other people, and you a knee jerk reverter - dozens of good edits get lost every week because of you just because they were in the way of revert. Your description of events if silly. I am getting nice mails from people about trying to edit in impossible circumstances, are you? OK, I know, it does not matter what happens off the article. But please do work on the article, and don't react to edits as a negative. And stop waiting for the cavalry. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b#I've lost count

I apologize for the reverts Elonka. See, Lancaster and I were literally in the process of discussing those very issues when he pulled that stunt. What he wrote on the history page implying that I somehow "agreed" with him about the edits in question (when I told him in no uncertain terms using dif and link after dif and link that I most certainly did not) is just plain untrue. I never agreed to those edits. His behavior is simply unacceptable because I too could very easily disregard the discussion process and modify the text as I see fit. And should he raise objections, I could likewise turn to him and say, "hey, we agreed to it, didn't we?" when we of course wouldn't have. Everything you write is true Elonka, and believe me, I wish I didn't have to respond to all this stuff Lancaster keeps writing (starting "new sections" every two seconds and whatnot). However, there's just so much misrepresentation churned out per minute by him that I often feel tempted to do just that. The moderator Swid sensibly recommended yesterday that we just take it easy and post short responses in one place. I thought that was great advice and heartily agreed with it, but apparently Lancaster did not since he opted instead to start yet another new section below the moderator's section, forcing me to respond to that as well. I'm still trying to figure out when will this nonsense ever end if he keeps starting these confounded "new sections". Causteau (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone starts a new section, doesn't mean that you need to reply to it.  :) Instead, keep an eye out for anything that may be gaining traction, meaning some other editor is posting a comment. If no one else is commenting, there's probably no need to reply, unless you feel that there's a possibility that you and Lancaster could find a meeting of the minds, in which case feel free to discuss, but don't feel that you always have to react. Does that help? --Elonka 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it helps and certainly puts things in their proper perspective. I appreciate your efforts at injecting some sanity into the proceedings. Causteau (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So...
1. Is editing "unilaterally" (without Causteau permission) a "stunt"? Elonka, please say something about this? Is it?
2. If there was an open discussion which I interrupted with a "stunt" (editing) where are Causteau's latest and new explanations, especially now that he did two reverts? I see nothing. The discussion already went in a circle for a few months. What are his reasons for reverting, if any, apart from no permission?
3. New Sections. Let's get this straight. I open new sections on the Talk Page, because I can not edit on the Article, and because on the discussion page itself all discussion is drawn into circles which stop. I must go through every piece of punctuation, because I supposedly need permission. That is the problem! I am so glad there is agreement. Now, Elonka, you are an admin and Causteau claims you as the source of his special power to ask for permission. I have never heard any such thing from anyone except Causteau. Say something about that please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell: I can not edit without reverts on this article and the advice that was given suits Causteau nicely, as he interprets it, and he is being allowed to interpret it: first everyone has to talk about everything and agree. That makes it easy to keep things under control. Now we see the new advice: can you also now stop talking so much about editing also? This is just depressing. I've got a backlog of edits which have been defended to death but can't be used: proposed, debated, sourced, deleted, debated, deleted, not debated etc. You have to look at the cause of the problem and not the effects. The cause is the black and white disagreement concerning "unilateral editing" and whether it should be allowed at all on the article, or whether they are "stunts". That is the problem. That is what needs to be solved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's please keep these discussions on the article talkpage, so the mediator can follow along as well. --Elonka 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've really tried to do that. The Talk Page has how many archives now? And all full of the efforts I made, at your suggestion, to go through the article line by line with Causteau, and to protest at all the silly reverting. But, I don't see answers about the above questions, on the talkpage or elsewhere, and I don't think you are proposing that I start another new section about it? The reverts continue however, and if I re-revert then there are threats of admin actions being taken. Causteau's reverts earn him "I know it is frustrating" messages on his talk page. The last two reverts were only done with the explanation that they had no permission from Causteau. He has made no attempt to discuss anything else about them since. Let me know what else I'm supposed to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There was one new revert, and Causteau has been cautioned about it. I've seen no new reverts since then. Going forward, I recommend slow changes to the article. Pick one paragraph (or even sentence) that you most want to see changed, make a modification, ensure that your edit is carefully sourced, and then wait and see how things go. If Causteau agrees with your edit, or changes your edit, and you agree with the change, then good. If you disagree with the change, try to see if you can change his edit, towards finding a compromise version. Then if he accepts your edit, great, and if not, he should make an edit which tries to find a compromise with your latest change, and so forth. Lather, rinse, repeat. See also Wikipedia:Consensus. --Elonka 06:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Changes can not get slower than they are. I think you are not looking at what problems are causes and what problems are effects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1. You say there was only revert? I think you mean that only involved using the "undo" button. Compare [[25]] and [[26]], with this latter being the last of a series starting here [[27]]. So you could say that in two edits, Causteau reverted 4 edits of mine. Of course this was only one recent example. The same pattern continues over months.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Concerning the approach you suggest, surely this is what I've been trying to do for some months now? You insist on saying that if this is a problem then this must be because there are different opinions about specific facts and sources, but this is not the case at all. Causteau's own explanations to you above make his attitude clear, which is that he'll revert anything he can find a reason to revert and edit, whether he agrees with it concerning facts or not, and he considers who people make lots of edits to be somehow against Wikipedia policy. I did a large number of edits on references in the weekend, and while he left those in, he has explicitly mentioned this large number of edits as a justification for more reverts. Like there is a quota. (He uses your types of comments about "going slow" as his excuse.) If necessary, he'll keep looking for new reasons he can experiment with after others are knocked down, and he is willing to revert before he has his argument together as well, on the basis that people should not be editing until he has had his satisfaction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Concerning "consensus" I have no problem, except that the present situation is no longer like the normal Wikipedia situation. One editor understands (perhaps accidentally) that he has support from an admin so that he can revert others without any concern that they can revert back. Therefore one editor, who does not like edits anyway, has no need to pursue consensus. He writes to the admin constantly every time the other editor tries to make edits, or tries to engage in supposedly too much discussion on the talk page, as if that in itself is a bad thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh

Just a quick note that I've put a comment on my talk page which diagonally addresses you. The short of it is that I wouldn't oppose a reduction of his topic ban to 30 day if you felt it more in line. — Coren (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Archive_24&oldid=1151045104"