User talk:Elonka

What do you think?

You have expressed an interest in my interactions with other editors in the past. Do you consider this a personal attack against me? Do you think that what I wrote (immediately above) provoked this/was written in a disruptive or inappropriate way? These are good faith questions: I'd appreciate an independent view here. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely ad hominem. I have left him a note. --Elonka 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, are you sure you understand what an ad hominem is? Sarcasm is not necessarily an ad hominem.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). [1]

Since I did not think that anyone would take my sarcastic comment as a true claim, and since I did not apply any such claim as proof that his argument is false; the statement is just a sarcasm, not an Ad Hominem. In fact, his edit is written so vaguely that I still have no idea what he was trying to say, and my edit was more a question than anything else.

I will admit that the comment is sarcastic, but it is not an attempt to discredit his argument be discrediting him. (It is probably less an Ad Hominem than the time when -- in the middle of a disagreement between us -- he offered sympathy for my limited ability to explain myself in English.) Actually I have spent a lot of time thinking about the problems posed by Ad Hominems on WP, and would not use such an argument. I consider it very kind of you to do a favor for a fellow administrator by defending against that mean, and sarcastic, Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but Ad Hominem "Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking ... rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim," seems to indicate your position is contrived. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli settlement

If you would be so kind as to comment on the recent reverting of my edits on this article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been casually watching, and hoping that the editors there would be able to work things out without requiring admin intervention. If you're sure it's an impasse though, I'll take a closer look and see what I can do. --Elonka 17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations#Was there a move?

Hey, I have replied to your concerns on the talk page there. Sorry about the delay in getting the bot back up after toolserver went down, but it cannot run without upto date databases on toolserver. —— nixeagle 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did reply there, if you respond quickish I might be able to reformat the output for you in relation to the first point about WP:POPUPS. —— nixeagle 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'm trying to debug and fix another bot as well. —— nixeagle 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 discussion

In the process of subpaging, I think a comment of yours was lost. Majorly talk 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bishzilla RFAR

Hi. Regarding Bishzilla, you wrote: "it is clear that she is not able to use administrator tools in a responsible manner, and she should therefore either resign or be forcibly de-sysopped". Would you care to explain what your criteria for forced desysopping are? (Should you wish to elaborate on criteria for voluntary resignation, please don't do so without a discussion about in what way any such criteria should be subject to arbitrary post-hoc redefinition, as that is how you have chosen to employ them yourself). Kosebamse (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My own standards are here. The core element of them, ever since my RfA, has been simple: If I abuse administrator tools, the community has a right to ask me to resign, and I will abide by the community consensus. The difference between me and Bish, is that I never abused administrator tools. Bish, however, used her tools to indefinitely block an active arbitrator. The block was overturned within minutes, and the strong community consensus is that the block was completely inappropriate. And even if, by some extraordinary stretch of the imagination, the block might have been appropriate, Bish should not have been the one to place it, because she was not uninvolved. Her actions were wrong, by every possible metric. --Elonka 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your elucidation. I note that you have precisely avoided discussing what I explicitly asked you not to avoid. A very significant part of the community has asked you to resign, and you have refused to abide by that demand or by your own commitment. As someone who has post-hoc tweaked her own standards to avoid unpleasant consequences, you are in no position whatsoever to publish behavioral standards for others. Kosebamse (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not about me, this is about a clear abuse of administrator tools by Bish. BTW, Kosebamse (talk · contribs), I find it very interesting that with everything else going on, the only person that you are choosing to talk to, is me. Why is that? --Elonka 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad 1, it is about you as well as Bish, because you have set an undesirable example by lawyering yourself around your own standards when it came to resignation from adminship. Ad 2, you are free to find interesting whatever you like. If you take an honest interest in my opinions, I shall be glad to discuss anything you like at my talk page. Subjects suggested: honesty, decency, Machiavellism, and the social dynamics of Wikipedia. Kosebamse (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No bots, please; we're Wikipedians

No thanks, I have not installed a bot on my usertalk because I may want to keep some old messages, as I have done at the top of the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rachel Corrie

I appreciate your effort to help resolve the archive issue at Talk:Rachel Corrie, which is grossly overswollen. But we're already making slow progress toward agreement that some issues can finally be closed and archived. Also, part of the reason for the slow progress is that there are editors on the page who I'm trying to convince NOT to treat archives as a Flash drive to cut and paste to/from, but rather to start new sections instead. I'm afraid this would aggravate it.
If it's not below at least 200k by 31 Jan, please accept my invitation to wreak havoc and hack it down to such a size or smaller. But at least for now, can you give us a little more time? Thank you, arimareiji (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I took too long composing my comment. Commenting first would have been better, but I sometimes (often) take awhile to write. I thought it would be prophylactic to make the edit before anyone else added material which would have made the undo more complicated. arimareiji (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask why you didn't respond to my request, then added MiszaBot anyway? I'm not sure why this is such an urgent problem that it can't wait for a more peaceful resolution. arimareiji (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the talkpage itself. The only reply was someone concurring with the plan, so I waited a day and then added the bot. It should really be set at a 7-day cutoff, but I set it for 14-days for now, and then we can tweak it later. If you'd like to make a list of "to do" items, have you looked into using the {{todo}} template, or adding a list at "./TODO"? This would be much more efficient than maintaining a 400K page. --Elonka 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my specific suggestion, you asserted that it needs to start "soon." I took that as concurrence that if the problem wasn't resolved in the time frames I had asked for here and on that talk page, you would then act. arimareiji (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon? You made one unannounced edit to add a bot, and asserted consensus based on no one responding to "the page needs to be reduced in size soon." I had previously asked you to give me some time; your response was the above. I reverted that one edit after explaining why. How is that continual? Your threatening objection to my daring to revert you even once speaks far more of WP:OWN than anything I've done. arimareiji (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit was an archive which made no effort at consensus, and went against established discussion on the page. Your second edit was not an archive, it was addition of a bot with only a nominal effort at discussion. If you'll note, I'm asking to see if it's possible to get consensus for your proposed method - I'm not blindly opposing you in the way that you're blindly opposing me.

You pejoratively note that I've spent a lot of time at the Rachel Corrie page. Yes, I have - I've put in a lot of effort to trying to get the worst of the POV out, and it's an uphill battle. Have you considered that maybe that means I understand the dynamics better than someone who charges in with the best of intentions but little understanding of the history?

I'm proud of the results - perhaps the best reflection of them is that I get accused of POV by both sides for trimming their rhetorical excesses. Compare the page now to the page a month ago, and you might actually agree with me that it has improved. The warring on the talk page has been decreasing more and more, and I don't want to see it flare up again because of something as minor as the current size of the page. As you pointed out by graciously showing me that the page versions are stored in the history, the current size of a talk page is not a life-threatening issue in terms of database storage.

If Kasaalan and PalestineRemembered agree that the bot can be added immediately, I'll happily concede the point - I'm working towards the same goal as you, though we differ in our beliefs of the necessary time frame. We'll both be happy. But if not, I think it would be grossly counterproductive to start a real edit war. Our current argument is a trifle by comparison to what's gone before. arimareiji (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, can I ask why this is such an urgent matter? You've known my proposed time frame since you first edited the page, and you still say "24 hours" before you're empowered to do whatever you want. You're not being "lenient," you're simply reiterating the same demands. If you actually look at the page, you'll see the obvious reason why I chose the 18th - many of the threads pass 30 days at that point, and no one has (yet) objected to 30 days as an ultimate deadline. And if you look at the page you'll also see that I'm actively trying to get people to agree that threads they've claimed should be kept can be closed out. That's a far better solution, I believe, than announcing that It Has Been Decided From On High.

Until I started pushing the point to get material archived, no one was even trying. So I'm not sure what basis you have for believing that someone has suffered Great Injury that requires you to come up with The Solution. Nor do I understand your basis for implying that other admins will coincidentally decide to come visit the page in the next 24 hours and reach the same conclusion as you - it sounds more like canvassing.

I genuinely hope that Kasaalan and PalestineRemembered show up and agree with you. It would mean this rather absurd argument would be over, and that I can stop spending time trying to get people to agree to put issues to rest. But if not, may I ask what basis you would have for insisting on "tomorrow isn't good enough, it must be today!" even though that would mean consensus would be strongly against you among the parties concerned? "My way or the highway" isn't the Wikipedia spirit, when there's neither harm engendered in waiting nor a violation of any policy except your own perspective. arimareiji (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A particularly apt quote I saw on someone's page just now: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." If it's possible to achieve a peaceful resolution in two days, why is it necessary to force through your own personal solution in one day and then start handing out punishments to anyone who disagrees - when there's no compelling good to be gained by doing so? arimareiji (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

May I inquire as to your current intentions? Given that you haven't responded, I take it that you intend to enforce your ultimatum. If so, any efforts I make will only hinder you and therefore I won't make them. But if not, I would like to know so that I can continue the process of trying to move material to archive in a consensus-driven fashion. arimareiji (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to start archiving, that would be excellent. Whether you manually archive or setup a bot, I have no preference, as long as something is done to start shrinking the page from its 400K+ size. --Elonka 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't really answer my question. You made a 24-hour ultimatum, and if you intend to enforce it then any efforts on my part would be wasted. Likewise for suspending the ultimatum, only to reassert "you're not going fast enough" at 36 hours, etc. arimareiji (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added an archive bot to the page which will auto-archive any threads which have had no activity for two weeks. Looking at page traffic, 7-days would probably be a better cutoff, but we can start high and then tweak down. If there's a desire to keep any of the threads on the live page, just add a reply to them to show that the discussions are still active. --Elonka 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I find it regrettable that you felt it necessary to enforce your ultimatum with only a token attempt at discussion. I repeatedly asked for clemency and for you to bend even slightly on your demands, and you did not bend at any point - only reiterate that your opinion trumps consensus, and threaten sanctions unless I immediately complied with your decision. There was no clear policy violation, only a demand on your part that your chosen solution be immediately implemented instead of waiting one more day. arimareiji (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

May I request an explanation of (or, preferably, point me to the policy on) archiving articles such as this? While not directly comparable, ANI is currently 410K, AN is 93K, RSN has just been archived down to 238K. Many TalkPages have been chopped to a size I find irritating - sometimes by editors who don't always seem to contribute very usefully. It's not happened to this one, yet, which is still at 331K, but I fear it might, and the article will be poorer for it. PR^talk 09:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and user check?

We may need a user check on WillC and an unnamed user 96.239.140.104, who are instantly reverting my reverts this date of their inappropriate tags attached to articles on Sierra Club and Southern Poverty Law Center. It seems they object to previously published information beging posted that links three candidates in the 2004 Sierra Club Board of Directors election to two anti-immigrant groups. Their use of tags for independent citations (for financial information provided by the group cited) and for "weasel words" are inappropriate under the circumstances and disruptive. Motivation may be white supremacist affiliations. Most recent items in article histories today. Welcome back... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not user:WillC. On the other hand, User:Mervyn Emrys is clearly the same person as User:Dr. Perfessor and maybe should have his own user check since he is requesting one on good faith editors who are trying to keep his heavy POV pushing in check. Mervyn Emrys should be warned for personal attacks for "motivation may be white supremacist affiliations". Indeed, I voted for Obama. The Southern Poverty Law Center's self-serving promotional material fails WP:RS for any claims about that group, and fails WP:COI regarding anything about the 2004 Sierra Club election since they were one of the outside groups trying to interfere in that election. Emrys' edits do not give the impression that he is here in good faith, just here to promote his own POV. We are trying to keep POV out of these articles and keep them grounded in verifiable fact. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am WillC and only WillC. Mervyn is way out of line reporting people merely for disagreeing with him. WillC (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

All my edits on the Sierra Club and Southern Poverty Law Center articles are factual and I provided references to reliable sources, whereas these users do not. Their efforts are apparently directed towards making their POV more palatable to an uninformed audience. One has neither an active user page nor a talk page. The other is pushing confederate flag POV. Perhaps a user check should be done on all recent unnamed users on these two pages? There is clearly a pattern of edit warring on both. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are neither factual - they are conspiracy theories and personal attacks - nor are they sourced to reliable, third party sources that lack conflict of interest. You are the the one adding POV to these articles which had been neutral and stable for a long time before you started editing them. I'm trying to take the POV back out of these articles. You also have posted personal attacks on myself (using "POS" in an edit summary, accusation above of "motivation may be white supremacist affiliations") and posted numerous derogatory statements on people like John Tanton which are against Wikipedia policy in regards living persons and should be deleted. You say you are not here for the politics - then don't make heavily political edits. This is your final warning to please stop. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, POS was a typo for POV. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be more believable if S were anywhere near V on the keyboard. Maybe POW would be better, though I'm not sure why it would be relevant to call 96.239.etc a prisoner of war. arimareiji (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But on the other hand, 96.239.etc, phrasing like "this is your final warning" is a Really Bad Idea. Unduly inflammatory, and inappropriate unless you're an admin - which AFAIK is not possible for IP accounts. Though I could be wrong, you might be the first IP admin ever and I didn't get the news yet. arimareiji (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about assume good faith for my correction above? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am; that's why I was speculating on how a second typo might have fouled your good-faith efforts to explain a perfectly innocent first typo. I call people prisoners of war all the time, though I can't recall ever calling someone a "point of view." POV editor maybe, but not a POV. arimareiji (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Final request" then? :) May the lowly IP politely request an audience with an Admin for the purpose of humbly petitioning for reversion of the above articles to their pre-Mervyn Emrys/Dr. Perfessor state and warning given unto Mervyn to stop inserting his own biased narrative (or that of Morris Dees) as if it were fact? 96.239.140.104 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have gone with "the last time I politely ask before I have to start the dispute resolution process," myself - but I've always been prone to logorrhea. 'Twas just a friendly indirect reminder to keep it civil if you want to be taken seriously. arimareiji (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil is as civil does..Mervyn has not been particularly civil himself. Starting with his use of the terms "anti-immigrant" and "hate group" and his inability to assume good faith. Use of those terms is on the exact same level as using the N-word, and they have no place in polite discourse nor a neutral encyclopedia article. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Confederate flag POV? how so? on the SPLC page? wow. WillC (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: my edits were factual and well-documented with reliable sources. Deleting the references I provided doesn't change that. And it matters little if the unnamed user (who has no active talk page) thinks those references are not reliable. They are, and others will verify that fact. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note regarding at least one of the disputed edits on the SPLC talk page. Perhaps that would be a better battleground than here? arimareiji (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm informed on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by users above "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [2] [3]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also informed that a link to an audited financial on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source, so it seems the objections of two editors in that regard has no substance. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

edit warring on New Antisemitism

OK, I'll back off, but you're incorrect that I am not participating in talk. I have been and shall continue to be a participant on the talk page with respect to the image issues; the current discussion is about why we need two of the same image on the page rather than one; the person I reverted was adding a third image. The only purpose seems disruptive especially given the user's edit summary; coupled with that, it's objectively a terrible photo, lighting so bad you can barely even see what it purports to be a photo of. But I'll raise these things in the discussion. Thanks. csloat (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You got mail

— Sebastian 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Regarding this warning, I'd like to offer a suggestion. WP:UNINVOLVED states that "if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be alleged, it may still be better to pass [enforcement] to others where possible." In the interest of reducing conflict, it might be useful to have another admin or two scrutinize the situation and provide feedback regarding sanctions. For instance, Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) has previously managed disputes involving many of the same editors and might have useful perspective. In any case, if the need for sanctions is real, then it should be straightforward to demonstrate to an outside admin. In this case, given concerns that have been raised and that are not unique to Orangemarlin, the extra step is probably worth the trouble to avoid unintentionally worsening rather than improving the situation.

Additionally, if you regard Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) as acting particularly counterproductively, then it may be worth contacting User:Jpgordon. I'm not sure whether Orangemarlin remains formally under his mentorship; regardless, as OM formerly entered into voluntary mentorship with him, involving Jpgordon might be a productive next step here, rather than invoking discretionary sanctions.

In your warning, you accuse Orangemarlin of "threats and false statements". I'm a bit concerned, because the diffs you provide both link to instances where Orangemarlin has criticized you - specifically, your ability to use the tools from a position of neutrality. The first cited diff is somewhat intemperate in tone, while the second cited diff appears to be critical of you but not in breach of any behavioral policy or guideline. In any case, it would seem inappropriate for you to invoke discretionary sanctions against an editor citing, in part, the fact that he has criticized you. Even if these were out-and-out personal attacks, it's generally a bad idea for an admin to sanction someone for incivility directed at themselves - a best practice codified here by ArbCom.

Additionally, your warning accuses Orangemarlin of "ignoring cautions". Based on the diffs you cite, I see him repeatedly removing your warnings from his talk page ([4], [5], [6], [7]), which is generally considered an allowable activity and seems odd grounds for a sanction. On the other hand, "repeated annoying and unwanted contacts" are listed as a form of harassment in the relevant Wikipedia policy. While I'm sure it's not your intention to harass Orangemarlin, repeatedly posting warnings to his talk page (I count 4 in the last 2 days), in the face of obvious evidence that he doesn't wish ongoing contact there, is unlikely to improve or de-escalate the situation. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At this time, Orangemarlin is not under any sanctions, he has simply been notified of the pseudoscience case. Thanks for the comments though, I'll keep them in mind going forward. --Elonka 00:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, about your comment to Jim62sch [8], I see a pattern here. You have an obvious history at that article and at other pseudoscience articles for many months now of taking a stand on pseudoscience content and views, meaning you are clearly too involved a party to be so heavy-handed with these two editors. You're far too involved to be leaving comments that read like threats, or protecting that article, as you did last month. People did notice that, and it doesn't reflect well on your claim that you're a neutral party simply enforcing Wikipedia policy. Looking over your activities at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts it strikes me you are ignoring the previous arbitration ruling in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience along with Levine2112. Perhaps it's time to take the matter back to the arbcom, but it would be better for the community and you were you to stop trying to force a new interpretation and simply just accept the standing ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and get Levine2112 to do so as well. There's a limit to how much disruption over previously settled matters the community is willing to put up with, particularly around things like pseudoscience. There are better uses of your time and those you are tying up there. How about moving along? FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I was a bit confused by your statement about pseudoscience content though, since I really have no opinion either way, as long as policies are being adhered to, so I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say I'm "taking a stand on pseudoscience content". As for Levine2112 (talk · contribs), if you'll review his talkpage you can see that I and other administrators have left him numerous warnings (example). When you say "get Levine2112 to do so as well", what exactly do you recommend? --Elonka 03:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, I will add my voice to those expressing concern. You have a history of involvement with the pseudoscience articles; if you truly do not care, then I strongly suggest you de-watchlist them and move on to something else. Your Notification of OM appears to be skirting very close to, if not actually violating, misuse of your position. Only an admin can add a name to that list, and you have added OM's name, someone with whom you've had a long running series of disputes. I recommend you remove your addition of his name to the "notification" list as far too involved to have made that determination, and leave it to others to add him, or Levine2112, or yourself, or anyone else if it is determined there is an issue. You seem to be using the ArbCom case to win a content dispute, and that is distinctly not desirable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In an early form of my evidence to the fringe science ArbCom case, I made a reference to administrators who appeared to become adversarial towards editors representing mainstream science. I later removed this, because the ArbCom seemed to be about very general issues concerning fringe science and not about particular individuals. You are probably aware, from comments by multiple editors, that your own involvement in policing science-related articles has been problematic, mainly because it gave the impression of ignoring intellectual issues of content, giving the appearance that fringe POV pushers were being favoured. This would clearly be completely against the basic purposes of this encyclopedia. For a while at least you seemed to have taken note of this and backed off from your approach. I wonder whether you could please take the hint now? Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• (moved from talk:killerchihuahua)

KC, hi, just wanted to point you at this ArbCom motion? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity. When one admin is acting in an ArbCom enforcement capacity, others should not reverse any of their actions. I welcome your comments at my talkpage, but please don't modify my posts, thanks.[9] Also, please be aware that there's a lot of negative gossip flying around, so I encourage you to be very careful about sifting through actual evidence. For example, some editors are trying to intimidate me away from a disputed page, by claiming that I've been involved in content disputes there. But it's demonstrably untrue, as I never been involved in a content dispute at that page, or with any of the editors. So just because they say I'm involved, does not mean it's true.  :) Hope that helps clarify things, --Elonka 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

it clarifies that you are conflating reverse with remove unecessary negative content from, and that you are persisting in the deulusion that you're not involved. I tried to be gentle and civil with you, Elonka, but you just aren't getting it. You're involved, and you're breaking the rules. I didn't come to this conclusion due to anything but reading your past contribs. And why on earth are you linking to that ArbCom diff? You seem quite fond of it; it is not however a panacea which means you can cite an ArbCom ruling and it makes all of your edits magically "right". KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, you got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you. Accusing anyone without a diff violates WP:NPA. That said, Elonka, I really urge you to take a deep breath. Why can't you just follow WP:DR and WP:DISENGAGE? No individual administrator is so important that Wikipedia would grind to a halt if they just backed out from a certain area for a while. — Sebastian 19:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sebastian.  :) And don't worry, despite the above comments (some of which are from people that I have warned in the past), I'm not involved with the content disputes here. However, if you or any other uninvolved admins would like to try and wade in and help sort out the dispute, your presence would be appreciated. Just add your name to Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Administrators monitoring this page, and help keep an eye on the discussions. :) Be warned that it's a bit of a minefield, and actually implementing sanctions is probably going to be a bumpy ride, but having more admins there would definitely be helpful! --Elonka 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist, but I can't promise anything. I'm currently quite swamped. While I enjoy being invited to more than one I can do, I am also sorry to turn down such requests. — Sebastian 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, are you saying, as you seem to be on several places, that you feel that if you have "warned" someone in the past, you can discard any concerns they might express about you as some kind of vengeful action on their part? Please clarify this, because it really does appear that way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I never discard concerns, and "vengeful" is a strong word. I do listen carefully to the concerns of everyone who posts. However, when an administrator places a warning, block, or ban, it's routine to receive criticisms from the blockee, along with all the blockee's friends. It's very rare that someone who was blocked or banned is ever going to thank the administrator and say, "Gee, good call, I really needed to be blocked!"  ;) So I tend to take some concerns with a grain of salt. There are also obvious factions in some of the ArbCom enforcement areas: In some areas, if an administrator attempts to warn or restrict one editor, a half-dozen of their friends may jump up to criticize the administrator. Which is fine, they're entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean that the block (or warning) was invalid. The opinions of the friends are valued, and I appreciate that they're taking the time to comment, but that doesn't mean that they should be considered as "neutral, uninvolved" voices. On the other hand, I do understand that to someone who's not involved with the disputes, and doesn't recognize the names and the various factions and cliques, it might look odd. An outside observer may see an admin's talkpage with all these voices offering criticism, and think, "Wow, that admin is just ignoring all the critiques!" But looking deeper, it's important to tell the difference between involved comments and uninvolved comments. Regardless of the source, rest assured though that I do still read everything, and do my best to take all the concerns onboard. --Elonka 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That is very good to hear; thank you for alleviating my concerns about that. Food for thought: has it occurred to you that people have other editors talk pages watchlisted, and may learn about something only due to your posting there? It may not be "rushing to the defense of friends" so much as "learning about a situation". KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, yes. "Friends" may have been misconstrued. A better way to describe it might have been, "People who have a history of editing in the same locations as this editor, engaging in the same disputes, nearly always on the same side as this editor." Would that be more clear? --Elonka 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It would have been different, but just as negatively biased. Jim has a point: you're calling them a cabal and/or meatpuppets, just using descriptive phrases and not the specific terms. Stick to "editors not previously involved" and you'll be accurate and not speculating on relationships or motives. KillerChihuahua^?!?

(ri)Why not just use the tried (tired, trite?) and overused "cabal" as that is really what you mean. Unless, that is, you think friends is in some way pejorative. Doesn't your foot hurt yet? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and discretionary sanctions

Elonka, please disengage and discontinue the disruptive behaviour you have started at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts talk page. You are supremely involved in the dispute, and your actions have been disruptive to editors and to the talk page, while also being a violation of WP:TALK. If you do invoke your arbitrary sanctions under the guise of the AE measures, then this will be a misuse of administrator tools under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and the associated disruption. This is an attempt at the first step in dispute resolution. Verbal chat 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please give evidence for how you believe that I am "supremely involved in the dispute"? Because to my knowledge, I have never been involved in a content dispute in this topic area, or with any of the editors. All of my actions have been as an administrator. --Elonka 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On a matter of principle, 'uninvolved admin' status cannot be impeached by an administrator's prolonged involvement in taking administrative decisions in a particular area. Generally, if you have to go deep into the histories to research an administrator's article-space contributions and make a detailed case, then you probably should not have bothered. If an administrator is involved as an editor, it's normally quite obvious. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Think ancillary. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the OM edits Elonka highlighted - now I guess twinkle was used but edit summaries were used to explain changes, which for me ameliorates things. Was there an etiquette discussed somewhere about twinkle (with edit summariesexplanations) on this matter? If not to date, then this should happen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue on some of the edits wasn't just that he was using Twinkle, but that he was simply reverting other editors' changes, without engaging in discussion at the talkpage. There was also at least one place where he used Twinkle to revert a change as "vandalism" even though it wasn't, and another case where he used Twinkle to revert, and then immediately use it to request protection on his version, but again, without any talkpage discussion. (diffs available upon request) --Elonka 21:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, on its own page twinkle is seen as a tool which has outgrown its original intent with options etc. Is there a page on its use, and does it discuss the use of edit summaries? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If we sanctioned everyone who rv'd w/o an edit summary we'd have three editors left.

Ah, but what cracks me up is that ZElonka seems to be trying to establish a pattern (badly done though that establishment process was) and yet finds patterns re her behaviour to be risable. But, that's just my opinion. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, occasional reverts without an edit summary, or with only a simple summary, are done all the time. However, when a page is in the throes of a major dispute, it is better to engage in talkpage discussion rather than just do "drive-by" reverts. Especially if there is already an active discussion on a disputed article's talkpage, to have an editor who is not involved in the discussion just come along, revert a good-faith edit, and then disappear, is fairly disruptive. --Elonka 22:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"the throes of a major dispute" is a perception. Note my previous comments on that concept. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I moved your spa analysis of me away from one single comment and placed it after my name in the list of names. I did this because given that I have signed many posts, singling out the one you did made it look, or could make it look like you were trying to prejudice the vote by trying to undermine that comment and that comment alone. By putting it after my name in the list it not only makes my spahood much clearer to all on that page, it also leaves you less open to attack on the basis of vote manipulation by defamation.

In any event, if you are going to continue to add this tag to comments of mine I would ask that you keep a note of where they are since, when I am no longer a spa (i.e., in a few days or so) I will be asking for you to remove each and every one you have added.

Thank you for the continuing warmness of the welcome to Wiki you are extending. Jigsaws are for losers ( ; Landed little marsdon (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan Novak (Writer)

Sorry abt the Rdr Jan Novak (Writer), which i created (along with another version) to satisfy copies elsewhere of someone's mis-formatting of the lk that i fixed. It was careless, and i should have been more alert that it was a rdlk. In any case i went ahead & did a WP:TPFR entry for them, so thanks for (& good riddance to) what you del'd.
--Jerzy•t 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, we handle this kind of routine cleanup all the time. No big deal. :) --Elonka 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)