User talk:Elonka/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Namespace pedantry

I have moved Chiropractic/Admin log to Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(blink) Um, sure, that's fine, but why? --El on ka 06:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not a article - ain't that obvious? And incidentally, is it serving any useful purpose since it is an orphan? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I just created it a few minutes ago. ;) Standby, I'll be starting a thread on the article soon. --El on ka 06:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted.[1] --El on ka 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw this over at AN and decided to pitch in as best I can, question, have you ever thought of using edit notices to convey either sanctions or the page rules? MBisanz ^talk 11:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be polite for me to tell you that I removed your comments that I didn't use the talk page since I have. I didn't for that one revert using only the edit summary to explain my actions which was probably not enough given the amount of times the same edit has since been reverted. I have commentted on the talk page since not being aware that warring would continue which was poor judgement on my part to use only the edit summary. Anyways, I just want to let you know that I changed it because it was not accurate to say I don't use the talk page. I am not active at all on this article but I do lurk and occasionally I make a comment, usually on the talk page not edits to the main article. I hope this clears things up and my apologies for any confusions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Crohnie, thanks for the explanation. :)

MBisanz, great! On a complex page like this, the more admins the better. I'd looked through history going back a month for the list at the admin log, but thanks for your additions. As for "edit notices", I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but if you'd like to try something, go ahead. Looking at the AN thread, where we've already had 3 arbs commenting (Morven, FT2, Sam Blacketer), it looks like the Pseudoscience case is okay to use. Are there any sanctions in particular that you think would be helpful? My own inclination would be to just start with a clear announcement that the article is within the scope of the case, and that might calm things down right off the bat, without any further actions needed. --El on ka 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Click this link [2], see anything different? I can do that to any page with any message content. I'll have to think of the best way to approach things. Probably some strong invocations of NOR, NPOV, and RS to start with, then seeing who disagrees with them. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you mean like a talkpage banner? Sure. --El on ka 17:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, on the admin log page, I recommend winnowing the list down to make it more useful. Right now it seems to include all editors who have done anything to the article, even if it was reverting vandalism or making some other minor edit over the last few months. So I'd recommend that we (1) Focus just on editors who have done something within the last 30 days (we can always add more names as they appear); (2) Only use names that have actually made a substantive edit to the article, or participated in a major way in the talkpage discussions. I'm ambivalent on whether or not to include the names of any editor who happened to pop in to offer comments in an RfC, but then didn't stick around.

The main reason for the list, is to make it easier to enforce discretionary sanctions. The list provides a quick list of the major players, including who's an admin, and which ones are "uninvolved" admins vs. which ones are "involved" admins, as well as providing at-a-glance coverage of who's been warned and/or is under restrictions. Which doesn't mean that it has to be done my way... I'm just offering suggestions from what I've found useful in the past. :) --El on ka 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question if you don't mind? On the log you removed yourself as an editor when others are questioning whether you should be active in this, why would you remove yourself like this since it is questioned on the article talk page and also at the administrator board? I'm not trying to cause trouble but this looks like you are changing the goal posts a bit. Thanks in advance, just trying to understand, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let me try and answer: I reworked the list to only include those editors who have been active on the article or its talkpage within the last month. The purpose of the list is for the use of administrators in managing the page. We're not trying to provide a comprehensive database of everyone who made even minor edits, but instead keep track of who the major players are, and/or who the disruptive ones are. As for my status, see WP:UNINVOLVED: The only edits that I have made to the page were minor citation fixes. It would be a real stretch to say that just because someone adds a link or fixes an ISBN number, that that removes their neutrality regarding an article. The core issue is whether or not an admin could exercise tools without expressing a bias on the content of the article. And I assure you, I have no preference on the article's content, and am not biased either way. My actions are not going to be directed towards forcing some preferred version of article content. Instead, my goal is to reduce disruption. Right now it's a very very complex case, since there are reasonable voices on both sides of the discussion, but they just keep butting heads and do not seem able to compromise. This has been going on for months. There's also an issue that some of these editors seem to be overflowing this dispute to multiple other pages around Wikipedia. In effect, they are treating the project as a battleground. But Wikipedia is not a battleground. We're not here to determine the "truth" about Chiropractic, we're just here to write a nice encyclopedic article which presents significant views about the subject in a neutral way. --El on ka 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks, that is a reasonable answer to my question. Though I do hold the opinion still that you are more involved than you think you are, I can totally except this response and I do agree with you about some of the editors looking for a battle. Thanks for taking the time to explain to me what you are attempting to do though, I appreciate it a lot. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your threat

I've responded on my talk page. Read it and pay attention. RedSpruce (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag Team

It seems you have impressed some of us with the concept of a tag team , and it has been invoked at a RfC against 3 individuals here : [3]. This would be the first use of the "tag team" accusation in a RfC, although MBisanz seems to think it a procedural fault [4] to bring an action against a group. Interesting... Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on ChrisO

He is one again threatening me with blocking in the middle of the ongoing content dispute. [5] As you know, this is not the first time he has done this. He has apparently been canvassing some administrators off-wiki on the IRC and elsewhere, to block me for him, to get rid of me, so that he would gain an upper hand in a content dispute. [6] [7] [8].Please see this thread as well. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Battle_of_Opis#ChrisO.60s_conduct_2 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --CreazySuit (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --El on ka 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for maintaining decorum in your comments towards me during what may have been a stressful situation. I appreciate it. You are welcome on my talk page any time you have concerns about my activities. Jehochman ^Talk 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Account deleting

Good morning mam,

I have to ask you if you could delete my current account because I don´t use it more for Wikipedia.

Thanks.--Germany2008 (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Usually there is no special action required in these cases... If you stop editing, the account doesn't have to be purged from the database, it just goes inactive. However, you might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Right to vanish. --El on ka 00:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Randi

It looks quite clear to me, but I'd like your opinion on whether this is indeed a BLP violation- [9] The only reason I have a doubt is that the researchers are not mentioned by name, but it is sourced directly to a source which I'm sure mentions them by name. Thanks (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the other editor is willing to compromise... See if maybe you can find a wording that both of you can live with? --El on ka 05:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was changed to something that's fine. I really didn't need help with the article, but rather a judgment check- I guess you agree that in such a situation it is actually a violation of BLP? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not look into it very deeply, so couldn't say one way or the other at this point. --El on ka 06:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please i need neutral admin assistance

Hello,on White people article there are other admins who are harassing me because i am in favor of removing the gallery(which is there postion also) the gallery was already on the article via earlier consenus but other editors want it down now with out giving time for other editors to chime in--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka thank you for being fair and your right,but if you could take a look at the talk page for White people we could use a neutral admin their thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

i called it vandalism because the admin was going against a previous consensus that was established earlier without trying to gain a new consensus first to remove the content, that can be construed as vandalism removal of content a few times not just once--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's not vandalism. It might or might not be called tendentious, disruptive, POV-pushing, and/or a host of other words, but vandalism is not one of them. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. Vandalism is when it's clear obvious "trying to damage the project" stuff, such as blanking an entire page, changing someone's birthdate to the year 2355, or removing an image of a building and replacing it with an image of genitalia. That's vandalism. But just disagreeing on content, or whether or not there is or isn't consensus? Nope, not vandalism. --El on ka 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

so i can just go around removing random content from articles because i disagree and its not vandalism?

also i hope you noticed the bogus warnings on my talk page,that was a direct attempt to try and make me seem like a problem editor on that particluar article when im a regular editor and am heavily involved in disccusion on the article if you bothered to notice--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you went around removing random content, that would be vandalism. If you were removing it because you had a good faith disagreement, it would not be vandalism. It might be a violation of WP:POINT though. But that would depend on other factors. --El on ka 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry but on second thought you appear to be a biased admin in favor of other admin sorry to have bothered you --Wikiscribe (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the Wikipedia Weekly

Would you like to join a round table discussion about nationist edit warriors and Wikipedia? If so, can you suggest a few times that might work? The commitment is 30 minutes for setup, and 60 minutes for the show. We are thinking about 10pm Eastern/9pm Central on Wednesday. Would that work for you? The mechanics are Skypecast, and it can be recorded so those who miss the broadcast can playback . Jehochman ^Talk 06:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for the warning. I did not revert more than three times though, but added some information on few of the edits which were not reverts. But I have no intention to edit war. I believe the issue can be handled in the discussion page. Unfortunately trust has broken down between the two sides. My proposal was simply to mention all different points of view, but the other side claims it is undo weight and I have challenged their viewpoint. Actually I believe if anything, an article by Lambert (the Professor of Grayson) in 2007 has more weight than the translation of Grayson (1975) since Lambert examines Grayson's translation and rejects it. Both sides have offered different POV's on why one should be better than another. My suggestion is to simply list all viewpoints of Akkadian translators in chronological order(Lambert, Grayson, Oppenheim) and the dispute will simply be resolved. --Nepaheshgar 01:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, you did not revert more than three times. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the policy though, to head off any possible future problems. Continuing to discuss things in good faith is the best solution, carry on. :) --El on ka 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thank you. Unfortunately the user does not wait for others to respond and after 3RR he has done another revert. I of course will not do another revert, since I am not an admin and I will get the full 24 hours instead of 3 reduced to 1 hours. I believe this is unfair and later a person who was not involved in the discussions came and r.v.'ed to ChrisO's version. --Nepaheshgar 13:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if ChrisO is instigating trouble, please report him at the noticeboards instead of blocking him yourself. It only takes a minute. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I have withdrawn my complaint in good faith. --Nepaheshgar 14:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Block

Did I just see your name come up on the block log for ChrisO? I don't know the reasons behind it, but I can tell you this: no matter if you were right or wrong, doing that block yourself is like admin-suicide. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Check his talkpage for more. It's all resolved at this point. --El on ka 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind the gun safety, the bullet didn't hit anyone, so why the fuss? --Abd (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's actions were reasonable. ChrisO knows all about the policy against edit-warring and 3RR. This was a miniscule block of only 3 hours and was lifted in about half that time. As for whether Elonka should have been the one to do it -- personally I think it's a good thing that someone is brave enough to take actions like this against other administrators. Some people need to learn that they are not exempt from the rules and that they will be treated like everybody else... except that in this case, most other editors would have been blocked for more than 3 hours, and wouldn't have been unblocked after about an hour and a half. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

microphone check

As you suggested. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage etiquette

Hiya, FYI, when an editor deletes comments from their talkpage, it is bad form to restore them. People are allowed to blank their own talkpages, except in certain rare situations (such as deleting unblock notices). See also WP:BLANKING. --El on ka 04:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. --Surturz (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, it's me again. :) As another point of etiquette, please try to avoid using editors' names in edit summaries, as you did here?[10] I understand that this is a frustrating situation, but the way through it, is to stay as civil as possible, and here's why: Right now there's a smell of blood in the water at the Chiropractic article, so there are a lot of community eyes turning in that direction. Most of these people are new to the discussion, and they're not very familiar with the dispute. To such third-party observers, the first things that are going to jump out at them, are things related to incivility and personal attacks. They won't care who started it, they won't care who's been baited, they're going to care who says what, at the time that they're looking. So when you are uncivil, even if you think that another editor "deserves" it, or even if you think that you may be being humorous, all it really does is to make you look bad. :/ So please, try to adopt as polite a tone as you can manage? That way the editors who can moderate their behavior will look good, and those who can't, are easier to spot, and thereby easier to deal with. With as complex a situation as there is at that article, we need everyone to help out as they can. So please, do whatever you can think of to de-escalate the dispute? It will be helpful to you, to the article, and to the project. Thanks, --El on ka 00:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the advice. --Surturz (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. :) BTW, two other things to be aware of: One is, that you can go back and change older posts of yours. It can make you look really good to go back and refactor words said in anger, to something more civil and professional. In the Wikipedia culture, it is often perceived as a mark of emotional maturity to be able to reconsider your actions and go back and change things. Another thing to keep in mind, is to pay attention to where you're editing on Wikipedia. Observers often look at someone's contrib list to see where they're editing. If it's the same article non-stop, these raise concerns about single purpose editing. For example, look at my contribs: Elonka (talk · contribs), and then look at yours: Surturz (talk · contribs). So what you might want to do, is try to spend at least half of your time on Wikipedia, working on articles other than Chiropractic. We definitely have lots of work that needs doing! See Wikipedia:Cleanup, or Wikipedia:Requested articles, or Category:Articles that need to be wikified, or just click on Special:Random a few times (I usually find something that I want to fiddle with, within 10 clicks). Working on other articles will also serve you well, both because it "breaks up" your contrib list, and also because it can give you needed perspective on a dispute. Especially when working in as intense a warzone as the Chiropractic article, it can be really refreshing to work in an area where people are actually grateful for the help! --El on ka 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a third time for the advice. I wouldn't know how to go back and change an edit summary. In any case, I don't like the idea of whitewashing my edit history. I have nothing to hide. I do edit a number of other articles but I agree I have been spending too much time at Talk:Chiropractic lately. --Surturz (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing Pallywood

You kindly suggested that, since I thought I saw serious problems with the Pallywood article (and the edit-warring out of the name-change conclusion reached at the AfD), that I should change the name, insert tags and then, maybe, edit it.

As you will see, our exchange on this otherwise quiet article and TalkPage simply resulted in an insulting reference to the killing of Palestinian children. It's actually much worse than it looks, since the editor in question has previously refused to say whether he has a CoI in this regard or not. I'll run the actual changes I'd propose past various contacts (none of whom are currently willing to identify themselves, for easily understandable reasons), but I thought I'd ask your opinion on the general prospects for progress first. PR^talk 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is potentially another WP:ARBPIA powderkeg, I recommend proceeding slowly. For example, identify one paragraph in the article that you would like to change, and start a section on the talkpage saying what you'd like to do. If no one objects, go ahead and change that paragraph, and then wait a day or so to see if anyone has concerns with your changes. If not, proceed to the next paragraph/section. If there are concerns, then try to discuss things in good faith and see if there's a reasonable compromise. Lather, rinse, repeat, per Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:BRD. --El on ka 20:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems at the office

Elonka, You asked:

The problems I had with random number insertion doesn't seem to be happening from my office machine, so if anything it is localized to my home machine, which I haven't checked yet. the danah editor. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi Elonka, I'm feeling spread very thin at the moment - I'm still at work, I'm hungry and I won't be finished for hours. What's worse, I don't have Loki to help me edit when I'm in the lab, his little paws were responsible for this "interesting" edit summary! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Delicious irony, considering which article that was on. ;) And no worries, I understand how it is to have more projects than time! --El on ka 01:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Related discussion:
WP:ANarchive#Chiropractic

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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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",[11] 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. :) --El on ka 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:[12] 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."

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? --El on ka 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)

That sounds like a very good method, Elonka. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I like the "1RR and clerked talkpage" idea. As for the MediaWiki banner, has this method been documented anywhere? I'm very curious how it works. :) --El on ka 23:46, 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.

So I'm asking Elonka what she means here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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)

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.

@Coppertwig: Yes, it really is that simple to any objective outside observer with a knowledge of the literature, to judge whether an article in one version or another follows reliable sources accurately, or not. Woonpton (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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. :) --El on ka 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,[13] 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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? --El on ka 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? ——Martin^phi ☎ 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. --El on ka 16:38, 2 October 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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The correct place to request the application of sanctions under an arbitration ruling is of course WP:AE. I recommend that any sanction discussions be held there in full view of the community. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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)

Nice to see you too Coppertwig (: Yes, we could link. I hope it doesn't become a food fight.... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Weakly symmetric space

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. --El on ka 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.[14] 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. --El on ka 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.[15] --El on ka 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 [16][17], 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)

(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. — TAnthony^Talk 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. :) --El on ka 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so happens I have that article on my watchlist, and I have blocked the editor involved. Yes, that was pretty black-and-white. Risker (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker, for the quick response. :) --El on ka 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! — TAnthony^Talk 20:08, 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. :) --El on ka 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 [18], 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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)

WP:OUTING

This discussion has been blanked as a courtesy

Diffs for later (if needed) reference:[19][20] --El on ka 15:43, 11 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[21]. 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! --El on ka 15:09, 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. --El on ka 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,[22] 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. --El on ka 04:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ... please review the diffs I gave you and look for my signature. But in any case, I suspect your time may be more profitably be used on less mundane things than archiving talk pages, it's a waste of your considerable talents. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see the problem, and have done my best to fix. Not sure what happened, though my guess is that somehow I started the archive from an "old" version of the page, which is why the newer messages vanished. Sorry for the glitch! --El on ka 04:43, 6 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.[23][24][25]. 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)

Elonka has participated in edit war against a significant contributor, Eubulides.[26][27] QuackGuru 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:AN#Chiropractic, I recommend keeping the discussion there. --El on ka 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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[28] and then deleted shortly thereafter.[29] I'm in agreement with you that it was worded too strongly, which is why I completely reworked it. The final version was here.[30] --El on ka 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. --El on ka 03:08, 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)

Amen. --El on ka 16:33, 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)

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)

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 (edit | 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. --El on ka 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). --El on ka 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. --El on ka 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)

Thanks, I appreciate it. :) And I apologize if I seemed a bit snappish about it. I'm probably a bit over-sensitive to negative comments from you, because of your other recent "weasel" comment. But hopefully we can wipe the slate clean and start fresh? --El on ka 13:30, 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)