User talk:Elonka

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

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

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

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

Sincerely

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

Sure, happy to help. My email address is elonka@aol.com --Elonka 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here is the link

Pretest webpage

If you have any question during pretest, please contact me.

Please finish it before 25 June. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW^talk 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty java-heavy page, and the instructions are not very clear. I tried it a couple times, and it kept crashing. --Elonka 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a java applet-embedded page, and as I know, Java 6 didn't integrated with Firefox 2 very well. I don't know what your browser and the version are, but now I am using Firefox 3 with the latest update of Java 6 and everything goes well. Maybe you can try to update your browser and Java 6 to the latest version. Hope that would help you. Thank you. :)

JnW^talk 12:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:

evaluation questionnaire

It is no longer java-embbeded. Don't worry about it would crash your browser. :)

thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)

JnW^talk 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. :)

JnW^talk 08:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

request for help, follow up

Hi Elonka, I left you a message 2 weeks ago which you promptly replied to... but which I didn't see :/ The message was here [1].

As you requested here are some examples to verify what I was speaking about... to recap, the editor in question was told that the source he disliked was valid as a reference, so he went through deleting all reference to it himself under various pretexts.

1. Comment: “Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages.” [2]

Link has been there since article creation, it was added by an Admin, Humus sapiens see [3] and it was there for years until the user removed it as part of a mass removal exersize. This is a common theme.

2. Comment: "Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages." (note the comment is identical to the one above!) [4] It was added and in the article with no complaints for 2 years, it is relevant. Added: [5]

3. Comment: The source documents are useful, but the slanted intros are more than a bit problematic. Does anyone know of other sites offering the originals, without editiorial comment? [6]

The is irrelevant when it is providing a link to the primary source below. Further what this editor refered to as "slanted" is a biography of a historical personality... I don't see how it can be refered to as slanted as their is no controvery over any of the facts. It is not only a false claim, it is an irrelevant claim.

4. Ber Borochov Comment: (none) [7]

Here the user removed a source with no explanation. If an online source of a historical document is available, what excuse is there for the deleting the link? It makes Wikipedia less useful.

5. Comment: “Cancellation of boycott: removed dodgy statement from equally dodgy source” [8]

This removed all reference to the peace vigil that took place outside the special meeting to cancel the academic boycott by the AUT in 2005. The site (which is mine) is a known resource center for material on the boycotts. The statement is one of fact (that an event happened), the comment is therefore somewhat disconnected to the edit.

6. Comment: It's not immediately clear why AJ6's criticism would be as notable as the ADL's or Brian Klug's [9]

Content removed is about a statement by AJ6, a movement that represents British Jewish students in their final years before university. Their statement expressing the specific concern of these pre-university students in light of an academic boycott are relevant, topical and not able to be substituted. The press release is hosted in the archive with permission from the organisation concerned.

7. Comment: I doubt this is the best possible source that one could find on "dhimmi" status [10]

Content removed is a reference to an on topic article by Dr Denis MacEoin, an expert in the field. It is written for Zionism On The Web, so can not be got from another source. Other articles could ofcource be given, but there is no valid reason for removing this one.

8. Comment: Here -- I'll add a more notable pro-Israel site in its place. I'm not against the inclusion of this perspective, just of the specific site in question. [11]

This is a clear statement of his intent in the comment.

The content change: Adds a link to Jewish Virtual Library, this is following a complaint after he removed a link to source documents on Zionism stored at Zionism On The Web here.

There can be no grounds for removing that links as it is provides references to key documents on the topic. His extra link is not a substitute.

Summary In summary though, these are just a few of hundreds of deletions this user made. They did this only after an attempt at Wiki lawyering failed and resulted in other editors disagreeing with their claims of a lack of notability, reliability etc. Rather than except the views of the discussion they took unilateral action using false pretexts for removals. Individually these might look like mistakes, or perhaps look plausible enough not to justify further consideration... added together it is a serious case of vandalism, those spread across many articles. Oboler (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I don't seem to be getting a reply... neither here nor on my talk page. Could you please let me know if you'll be able to take a quick look at this, or can refer it to someone / somewhere else? Many thanks, Oboler (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look sometime today. --Elonka 15:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if I am understanding things correctly, your main concern is that CJCurrie (talk · contribs) has been removing links to zionismontheweb.org from multiple articles? Based on a quick glance, I don't see any major problem with this. I doubt that the site meets WP:RS standards, or has there been a discussion somewhere which says that it does? --Elonka 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion at [12] he didn't seemed to like where it was going so left the discussion and started deleting on his own. I was advised by an admin (and clerk) to raise it in the evidence section of the ArbCom case... which I did, but it is not really related to that case, just an outcome of things tangential to the case. I spoke with arbitrators on the case who confirmed that they never looked at it. The tangential things were specifically CJCurrie (talk · contribs) taking exception to things I said the press, given I use my real name on Wikipedia he decided to "punish" me here for them. When various attempts to attack me failed, he decided to take the law into his own hands.

Note that based on the discussion, CJCurrie (talk · contribs) didn't claim it was an invalid source, rather he gave many varied often outright factually wrong reasons (as discussed above) for the various deletions. This was however a dishonest attempt to remove all reference. In short systematic defacement, out of line with the discussion. Oboler (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting CJCurrie directly? --Elonka 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We had spoken on varous other pages, including the evidence page, but I've now taken your (implied) advise and left him a note on his talk page requesting he undoes the damage. FYI, the note is here [13]. I will however be surpised if he agrees to do this, but you are ofcourse right to suggest trying first anyway. Oboler (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that my assessment of this situation is somewhat different from Oboler's. CJCurrie (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jagz

I'm sorry. I'm very disappointed in his behavior. I'm honestly shocked that he's done this. Dusti^SPEAK!! 05:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dont be sorry. You guys tried, and that is admirable. I was skeptic of the entire exercise (I first thought that it was a waste of time, then I thought that perhaps you were just giving him more rope to hang himself), but, in the end, you guys made me better at assuming good faith! I am pretty good at WP:AGF on the keyboard, but you got me to do it off the keyboard too! So, at least one good thing came of it. Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dustihowe: Yes, I'm disappointed too.  :/

Brusegadi: Thanks, and yes I knew there was some risk that it wouldn't work, but I felt it was a gamble worth taking. My gut tells me that he's not completely gone though... He probably has another account, or has moved his efforts to Wikia. I don't think we've seen the last of him. However, because he decided to "go out with a bang" on the Jagz account, his next accounts (if any) are not going to get much sympathy in terms of a second chance. If he would have stayed on good behavior with his Jagz account, then if another account was discovered, that was behaving in a constructive and collegial manner, we might have adopted a "wait and see" attitude. But as it is, anything new is just going to be blocked on sight. --Elonka 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, you guys had gotten me to believe he could really change his ways in the end. My hat off to you for trying.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, given some of the opposing editors kept stalking and edit warring with Jagz, combined with MastCell's threat to ban Jagz the next time he'd make an edit to a policy page. --Zero g (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think in a way, we are kind of responsible for his actions, because quite simply, individuals crack under pressure. Maybe he just got the final nudge? Dusti^SPEAK!! 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you and Elonka took on a difficult challenge in mentoring Jagz. Ultimately Jagz, and not other WP editors, must take responsibility for his own actions. MastCell's warning after Jagz's edits to policy pages was a completely normal response from an administrator, following Jagz's edits from a considerable distance. Nobody can excuse Jagz's obscene and disproportionate response. Mathsci (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You know Mathsci I agree with you, but, I don't think that some editors helped the situation much by watching his every move and being overly critical of his every edit. Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler

hi elonka. I made an edit to remove 5 of this article's 7 fair use images. It's been reverted. Will you take a look and see if you still think these images are appropriate? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That article has already been through extensive review processes, including WP:FA status. If there's a dispute, I recommend taking it to the talkpage. If there's consensus to remove the images, then proceed, otherwise, should probably leave them alone. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

From your contribs, 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), it seems fairly obvious that you've got experience with Wikipedia. Care to identify your other account(s)? If nothing else, I would recommend creating a named account if you are going to get involved in disputes. --Elonka 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat taken aback by your responses. I have never had an account, just a series of IPs. I am not really in what I would call dispute, I'm just editing. As you are the main contributor to this article, I was asking for your specific opinion on the image use, rather than advice. My next step in lieu of good arguments or agreement would probably be FAR, rather than dispute resolution. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Get lost, GNU freedom troll! You are exactly the kind of people who make Wikipedia suck, by insisting on ruining our fine articles with your idiotic ideology. Go back to commons where you belong. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The anon's actions do appear to be in violation of WP:POINT. --Elonka 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Elonka for my lack of civility. I'm afraid I'm a little frustrated about this nonsense and will be having a nice cup of tea now. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and feel free to refactor any of your previous comments.  :) --Elonka 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're a little late mentioning refactoring, since you've already given Dragon's comments your tacit support. I'm completely taken aback by all this. What point am I making, and how am I being disruptive? What's the problem? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the ANI thread. Perhaps you might see fit to pop over and apologize for your error in characterizing me as edit-warring. Your accusations of WP:POINT violation and threats are equally bogus failures of good faith, but unfortunately they are the kind of accusations one can not easily disprove. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People are encouraged to get an account, but they are not forced to do so. All users should be treated with respect. Just because a person is using an IP address instead of a logged in account doesn't mean they are less than equals here. An apology is in order. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To Anon, I am sorry for my outburst, I have redacted my comments. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the redaction yet, but thanks, Dragon. I prefer the nomenclature "IP editor", btw. :) 86.44.16.82 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And which other IPs might those be? --Elonka 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no others in this thread, so there'd be no confusion. Are you asking for a list of IPs I've edited under?! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I am. And/or named accounts. --Elonka 22:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For what reason? And you have already been told that I have not now nor have I ever had a named account. Continue on with your rude inquisitorial bluntness, false assertions, failures of good faith and implications that I am a liar regardless, though. After all, I made an edit to an article then enquired as to your opinion on the issue at hand! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem telling anyone as best I can, btw. I expect to know why you wanna know, though.86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the reason, 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), that I believe you to be in violation of both WP:POINT and WP:SOCK, specifically, "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." So I guess we could go to SSP or CheckUser, but I was hoping to save time. --Elonka 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your beliefs are less than fascinating, though it is charming that you feel no need to back them up with reason. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the IP editor has already informed you that he has never had an account, yet you continue to assume bad faith and refuse to believe his assertions. Further, he's asked you to point out what abuses he's supposedly committed, and you've failed to provide any. You can have whatever beliefs you want to have. But, continuing to make the accusations without assuming good faith and without backing up your accusations with evidence is behavior not in line with best practices here. I encourage you to reconsider your position. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The anon has been blocked (not by me) for one week, for trolling. I support the block, and have placed my reasoning on the anon's talkpage. --Elonka 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• And you still haven't provided any evidence of the supposed poor behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I only came across this on your talk page because we've come into contact over Muhammad al Durrah. I would just make the point that someone editing under different IP addresses is not of itself evidence of sockpuppetry - people might edit from different PCs at different times, and even when they edit from the same PC, as I understand it some ISPs assign rotating numerical addresses to the same internet account. And I haven't looked at the detail of the dispute, but from what I can tell the editor made - yes, a bold - removal of some images. When they were reverted, they did not edit war, but entered discussion on the article talk page and also came to your talk page to ask for your view. Then they were subject to some pretty childish abuse (which elicited a smile from you) and also to accusations of sockpuppetry, trolling and WP:POINT, as well as to general criticism based on the fact that they were an IP editor. Things seem to have now got out of hand from there. --Nickhh (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nickhh, outside opinions are helpful. And you are correct that just editing anonymously is not necessarily a problem. However, some editors do hide behind anonymity to be disruptive and avoid blocks, and that's when it does become a problem. As for your investigations, you're close, but I'd make a few small changes in the timeline: The editor was participating at one of multiple AN/ANI threads that had been started about Fair Use images, and then in the middle of that, made a no-notice deletion of several images from the FA-class Pauline Fowler article. They were reverted, told me about it, and then after prodding from me, took it to the talkpage. There was then a strong comment from another editor that the anon was, in effect, making WP:POINT edits about the "fair use" controversy, to which I agreed in principle (if not language). Things escalated from there, and the anon was then blocked (not by me). I did support the block, as did another admin who reviewed the unblock request. For more information, check the anon's talkpage. :) --Elonka 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was a bit loose in describing part of the chronology, but I still don't see anything blockable - I can't see any trolling or point breaches. And they actually took your advice to go to the article talk page of course, so it seems a bit unfair to now come out in support of a block. --Nickhh (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Elonka, you state that the IP editor was participating in multiple AN and AN/I threads on the issue and then in the middle of that removed fair use images from Pauline Fowler. A review of the IP editor's contributions shows this accusation to be false, as the IP editor had made only two Wikipedia space edits prior to the Pauline Fowler edit, and neither of those edits to the Wikipedia space had anything to do with fair use images. You are in error. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to these edits to the AN thread "Non-free images in "List Of" articles",[14][15] which thread was later closed[16] since it was overlapped with this ANI thread "non-free article discussion and 3RR".[17] --Elonka 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• You asserted the IP Editor engaged in editing Pauline Fowler after initiating discussions on fair use images. You are wrong. You have also continued to refuse to provide diffs showing incivility on the part of this editor. Would you please take the opportunity to provide those diffs now please? Thanks in advance, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft, you're bordering on attacking Elonka at this point and I can't even figure out the point of this discussion. She was not the blocking admin, so you're aiming your vitriol at the wrong person entirely. She has provided diffs multiple times both on this page and on the talk page of the anon in question, so please stop badgering her. If you have a problem with this block, I'd suggest you address it with the blocking admin or on ANI. Shell ^babelfish 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• If pointing out where Elonka is wrong and asking her to provide diffs to support her accusations counts as attacking, then by all means please immediately find me guilty of violating WP:NPA and seek to have me blocked. You claim she's provided diffs regarding the IP editors incivility. Would you care to point those out please? Thanks so much. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point where you're talking to the wrong person if your aim here is an unblock. Obviously, you disagree with Elonka on this point and I doubt further argument is going to change that. How about we go at this through proper channels if you'd like to see the block lifted? Shell ^babelfish 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd still like to see Elonka respond here regarding the diffs supporting her accusation of incivility. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest you read the talk page of the IP and check the diffs there. Since the IP is now unblocked, it should be a moot issue at this point. Shell ^babelfish 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

I need to replace one of the images on Muhammad al-Durrah (the postage stamp) with a higher-quality one. Any objections? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your restriction applies only to editing the article itself. Other peripheral things such as updating an image file, participating at mediation, etc., are fine. --Elonka 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will need to edit the image caption and link as well, since the image is a replacement for an existing one - see [18] - so editing the article will be unavoidable. It will be uncontentious, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just make a request at the talkpage then, thanks. --Elonka 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you could, you know, reconsider the restrictions as you indicated you would do. I've followed your restrictions faithfully and discussed things calmly at talk, so how about it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. You're definitely doing better, but I'd like to see a few days of you participating at talk, without making accusations that everyone on the other side is a conspiracy theorist, influenced solely by "right-wing bloggers"[19] or has an "ideological axe to grind".[20] --Elonka 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd thought it was clear enough that I was referring to the people outside Wikipedia who are pursuing this campaign, but apparently not. I hope you're not suggesting that there is no such campaign going on - it is, after all, the reason why the story is still in the news after eight years. At any rate, I've clarified those apparently-obvious-but-evidently-not-obvious-enough comments. [21] [22] -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When is this debate over?

I think Markussep and me provided enough evidence that a signficant Hungarian minority lives along at least parts of the river (actually in Komárno, where the Vág river meets the Danube, there is a Hungarian majority).
So Svetovid thinks it's time to remove the names (including the Hungarian one). Squash Racket (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:86.44.16.82

I had a brief exchange with this IP and didn't think much of it except that I didn't think much of his/her attitude. I've always disliked that IP editors, however good their edits are, don't really have a completely visible track record and this can avoid accountability and use that to game the system. In this case, the guy has a point that he does not need to have an account, and I await his forthcoming unblock request with interest. Since he's in Ireland, I would expect that to appear before midnight my time since we're in the same timezone. FWIW, I think he does have an arguable point about the non-free images in Pauline Fowler. Checkuser? Well I wonder what grounds there could be for that, because I think you need a pretty good reason, and merely being a "spiky" editor won't cut it. I'm in two minds about this, but I'm sure others will try to make it up for me. I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhullandemu 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think much of yours either (missed in your ire that talk should certainly be unprotected, then after further prod did so without acknowledgment ... i mean i don't even have a watchlist or whatever) but i have long since forgiven you since you (and i, when i can) are the only maintainer of the constantly vandalized Graffiti article since Key moved onto other things, and since you physically remind me of a pop star that I can't put my finger on, but know that i like. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce Redux

As I said in our last conversation, arguing about quotes in footnotes at one article serves no purpose. When consensus is reached at one article, RS moves to another article. We are now here. What is your opinion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked his account for three hours. --Elonka 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

my user page

yes. why do you ask? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's my concern about "setting a good example" since you're an admin. To keep that kind of thing on your userpage, tends to make it look like it was a personal vendetta, and that you might be gloating. Better would be to just take it in stride, make a "no big deal" show of it. So he's gone, so are a lot of people. It doesn't mean you need to paint a "kill marking" on the side of the cockpit. --Elonka 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two reasons why I think it is wise. The first is indeed personal - Jagz and several others made various accusations against me in the course of this conflict and I want an easily accessible record to turn to if anyone ever raises the issue again. The second is not personal and to me far, far more important: trolling is a serious persistent problem at Wikipedia and we have no real good mechanism for dealing with it except community bans - Arb Com only enforces violations of personal behavior policies, and most of our mechanisms and policies are meant to deal with conflicts between or among users. We have never had a good formal process for policing the quality of articles and people who have a persistent pattern of sabotaging articles - this is a matter of a conflict between someone with access to the internet versus Wikipedia itself, not between two users. I think it is especially important for administrators to learn how to recognize such trolls and for that reason I think there is a real value in accumulating a record of these kinds of incidents. Wikipedia is growing too fast for there to be a good sense of institutional or collective memory about these things (I wonder what percentage of people remember the entire Lir saga?) and too big for any one admin to know all the bad and ugly, as well as the good, that is going on here. AN/I gets archived at a dizzying rate. So yes, I think it is the epitome of wisdom to maintain an easily accessible record of such problem cases. I think they are very instructive. PS - I think you are generously over-estimating the number of people who look at my userpage!Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

?

why? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you are accusing other editors of bad faith,[23] and resorting to unhelpful comments such as "Yeah whatever"[24] and "nobody cares about facts."[25] I think it's best if you take a break from the article for a few days. You are still, however, welcome to participate at the mediation. --Elonka 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with bad faith. I'm just making basic observations. The discussions are going nowhere and ChrisO and NickHH are completely ignoring relevant information. Tundra and I have repeated the same stuff over and over again and nobody cares. My comments are justified. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward Pigman

Do you have access to the original text that was deleted on Ward Pigman? I would like to see if it is of use in the bio I am writing of him, it was deleted under BLP rules, but he has been dead since 1977. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No need, I found it in Conservapedia. How come Conservapedia doesn't give mention the info is copied from Wikipedia?

Beit Hanoun page

I apologise. I did agree to leave out the two phrases you mentioned, but then did not remember to check that I had done so when I went back to edit again. I'll try to be more careful in future. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:Elonka_using_blocks_and_threats_inappropriately RedSpruce (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Redux

He is doing it once again, post 3-hour block here. Again it is harassment and testing authority. A quick glance shows that footnote 85 also contains a quote but my entry has been targeted, well, because it is mine. He is also reverting to an inaccurate title for the article that is the source of the reference. He is making no attempt to trim the quote, he is just removing it, again. The pattern is to just move to a new article to avoid the consensus at the previous article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, if I was testy before, I know you have the best interest of all involved. It is very frustrating to be stalked and deleted, especially for months, and to be powerless to stop it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Harassment etc.

Hi Elonka, thanks for your input. In this particular case, content and editor are one and the same. I.e., an outlandish policy interpretation is being put forward by an editor who manifestly does not believe it (his "favorite article" by his own admission violates the interpretation), in what appears to be part of a campaign of harassment and lying regarding another editor.--G-Dett (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs? Thanks, Elonka 04:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

She hasn't made any more incivil comments since this, but yes I agree with you. Khoikhoi 06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

CJCurrie has started reverting again at Muhammad al-Durrah, so I am hoping you can underline that the article is still subject to 0RR.

I made an edit to remove from the first sentence that the IDF was reported to have shot the boy, and I also removed a new editor's addition of how the Palestinians are now being blamed by some, because it looked awkward. I wrote instead that he had been reported killed during a clash, without saying anything in the first sentence about who is saying who fired the shots. Both the new editor and I left explanations for our edits on talk. [26]

CJCurrie didn't reword the edit, he just reverted without explaining on talk (at the time of writing), yet he is aware of the 0RR. This is my edit at 07:45 July 5. [27] This is his revert half an hour later with "not a revert" in the edit summary, though it clearly is. [28] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me state, in the first instance, that I have not been actively engaged with the discussions on this article's talk page in recent weeks. I was a frequent contributor to Muhammad al-Durrah in the days following the recent court decision, when some editors made what struck me as questionable and unwarranted content changes. I was unaware that the article had been placed on 0RR until I received this post less than a week ago, and in fact I had forgotten this point when I first engaged with the al-Durrah page tonight. I apologize for this, though I'll also note that I self-reverted within two minutes: [29], [30].

When I consulted the ground rules that you provided on talk, the following point struck me as the most relevant to the current situation: If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.

I interpreted this to mean that a constructive change in wording would be, for our purposes, defined as something qualitatively different from a revert. This differs somewhat from the standard interpretation, wherein a "revert" is defined as any change to another contributor's wording.

Working within this framework, I suggested a compromise wording to the "Reports of the shooting" section (which has now been retitled). I will note that SlimVirgin has not taken issue with the wording I've proposed ([31], [32]). SlimVirgin subsequently added another clause to this section, whereupon I again provided a suggestion for an alternate wording ([33], [34]). To the best of my knowledge, this edit has not been the source of controversy either.

SlimVirgin's complaint, as I understand it, has to do with the changes that both of us made to the first paragraph. This is SlimVirgin's original edit, and this is the wording that I subsequently suggested in its place. A direct comparison between the relevant edits will show that this is not the same wording as before. Moreover, I believe that the change is qualitatively different.

My wording was intended as a compromise, incorporating both (i) a direct reference to the controversy regarding which side fired the "fatal bullet", and (ii) an accommodation of SlimVirgin's apparent preference that al-Durrah not be definitively identified as dead within the text of the lede. I would encourage SlimVirgin to reconsider this wording within this light.

It's true that I returned the words "from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)", which SlimVirgin had removed. Given the other changes that I made, I do not believe this constitutes a "revert" in the sense that the term is being used here.

I trust that I will be informed if I've misinterpreted either your instructions or SlimVirgin's complaint. My actions were carried out in good faith, and I hope they will be taken in that spirit.

Btw, I have no desire to engage in back-and-forth accusations, but I'll note that my actions were not qualitatively different from SlimVirgin's respond to an edit by User:Sposer earlier today: [35], [36]. CJCurrie (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. SlimVirgin's report is correct that CJCurrie did revert the article, but CJCurrie's explanation that this was a simple mistake, followed by an immediate correction a moment later, is reasonable. I also agree that CJCurrie's subsequent edits were in compliance with the conditions for editing, in that they were changes to the text, rather than reverts. For the purpose of this article, I define "revert" as something that might be done with the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, meaning a clean revert back to a previous version. As long as CJCurrie (or any other editor) is actively trying to find compromise wording, the editing is acceptable. There does appear to be some rapid back and forth, but I see this as a good thing, which I hope will lead towards consensus wording that everyone is more or less happy with. --Elonka 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, CJCurrie did not correct himself a moment later, and still hasn't. This edit of his reverted this edit of mine just half and hour after I made it, and the revert remains in the article. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment since my talkpage has been busier than usual today. My recommendation is to go ahead and keep editing the article, trying to find a compromise version. --Elonka 00:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To SlimVirgin: I addressed your concern in my initial response. Is further clarification required? CJCurrie (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch

Thanks for the reminder. I have great difficulty working with editors like Levine2112 who should be permanently banned from Wikipedia for their consistent, and long-running misbehavior. Since you've restored what I think in and inappropriate discussion to Talk:Quackwatch, I've tried to respond to it properly, striking out comments that were inappropriate on my part, explaining the situation further, and suggesting better venues for continued discussion. If you feel anything that I have written there is still uncivil, I'd like to know so I can take further action to rectify the situation. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is suggesting that I be permanently banned from Wikipedia very helpful here? Ronz, please go back to Talk:Quackwatch and remove (not just strike out) each time you have called or insinuated that I was being a troll, disruptive, hostile or anything else uncivil, unfair (and frankly untrue). Ronz, I would like nothing more than for you and I to come to some kind of WP:TRUCE here. I tried to extend the olive branch over at WP:TEA but you threw it back in my face. (Hot tea, ouch!) So please help get our amicable relationship on the road forward by simply removing all of your uncivil accusations toward me at article talk space. I really do think we are mature and rational enough to get past our spotted history. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is suggesting that I be permanently banned from Wikipedia very helpful here?" Helpful? I think "necessary" is the better word. When you've shown you can follow the policies and guidelines you are so adamant of imposing upon others, let me know. I've been waiting for you to do so for over a year now. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for your help, and you appear to be assuming bad faith on my part. Please detail exactly what you feel is uncivil. I'd also like to know your opinion on if he misrepresented me, and what the proper response to misrepresentation should be (regardless of your opinion on if he did so). --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You were asked, multiple times, to refactor your comments at Talk:Quackwatch where you called Levine2112 a troll. In response, you just crossed out the old statement and replaced it with another attack.[37] Article talkpages should be used to discuss the content of that article, and not the editors. This was also an attack in your edit summary here.[38] When you are asked by administrators to stop attacking other editors, this means that the behavior must cease immediately, not just change to other types of attacks. Now, I do realize that overall you are a very good editor, which is why I chose a ban instead of a block. It is my recommendation that you just avoid this topic area for the next week, and then return with a fresh start. In the future, keep comments on article talkpages limited to the article, and avoid personal attacks on other editors, and there shouldn't be any further problems. --Elonka 19:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And I refactored them, asking multiple editors for assistance in doing so. Obviously, I don't think these are personal attacks. Rather, they are my defense against Levine2112's attacks on me, which I've asked you to comment upon and you've not responded. You were the one that restored to the article talk page Levine's harassment. I feel I have a right to defend myself in such cases when I had already removed the discussion completely and repeatedly tried to get Levine to find a forum of his liking to discuss the matter. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll, is a personal attack. --Elonka 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Which I refactored. Saying his edits violate Wikipedia policies or guidelines is not a personal attack from my perspective. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll, is a personal attack. A troll is defined as someone who is deliberately trying to disrupt the project. Levine2112 has a long history of good contributions. He may get involved in disputes, he might even engage in disruptive or unwise behavior from time to time, but that does not make him a troll. Further, for you to bring up these issues at an article talkpage is not appropriate. An article talkpage is for discussing the article, not the editors. --Elonka 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We're clearly talking around each other now. I'd like to get these issues worked out. How should I proceed? --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with the ban, or my assessment of the situation, you may request an appeal via WP:ANI, and/or WP:AE. However, you may wish to read this first.[39] My honest advice is just to work on something else for a week, and then come back fresh. If it's helpful, I promise that I am closely monitoring Levine2112's edits as well. I am not ignoring him, and if I (or any other uninvolved administrator) feels that a ban or block is appropriate, we will take action. You are also welcome to bring up any concerns here that you have about his behavior. However, please do this without using pejorative terms such as "troll" or "vandalism", just stick to recent diffs and present them in a neutral way. Thanks, --Elonka 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. We're getting nowhere here. I don't know what your assessment of the situation is because you're ignoring my questions.

Funny you mention "vandalism." Did I use that word? I believe Levine2112 did, and in an edit summary using Twinkle. If you'll look in his history, you'll see that he's been warned, and more, for doing the exact same and very similar things in the past. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that Levine2112 used the word vandalism towards one of your posts, which he shouldn't have, and he has been cautioned for it. As for your other questions, try breaking it down. Just ask me one at a time.  :) --Elonka 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question #1: Do you feel I acted in good faith in refactoring Talk:Quackwatch (editing on 5 and 6 July)? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak to what you did or didn't feel. However, your refactoring was not sufficient, and indeed, made the problem a bit worse. You were asked to refactor anything where you issued a personal attack, and you just replaced old attacks with new attacks. Whether I would call this good faith or bad faith doesn't really apply. Someone can be acting with the best of intentions, and still be issuing personal attacks. The bottom line is WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." There are certain venues where that doesn't apply, such as in a User Conduct RfC, an ArbCom case, an RfA, administrator boards, etc. But on an article talkpage, it definitely does apply. Your comments should be limited to the content, and not the contributors. --Elonka 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You've refused to answer my question, and gone back to repeating yourself. Maybe we can try again later? --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question #1.1 Do you feel I acted in good faith, refactoring my comments in Talk:Quackwatch (editing on 5 and 6 July), to focus on content and actions rather than the editor? (Please note that I'm not asking about how you think I felt.) --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages

Side question: Is it OK for me to continue this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed#Quackwatch ? --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And this one: User_talk:Ludwigs2#tsk_template --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And this, which I've already replied: User_talk:ScienceApologist#Page_ban_from_Atropa_Belladonna. Any reason to avoid anyone other than Levine? --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the SA talkpage post, you shouldn't have posted there, but since you brought it up first, you get a pass.  :) Please don't post there again though, until your ban is up. I've also posted notes to the other two editors, letting them know to contact you at your talkpage if they would like to continue the conversation. Basically, treat this ban like a "partial block". If you were blocked, you wouldn't be able to post anywhere except your talkpage. But I felt that was excessive, since you work in a lot of other topic areas too. So, just pretend you're blocked from anything homeopathy-related, and carry on with other work for a week. --Elonka 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block a Davkal sock?

Hi, could you block User:74.208.16.55 who is acting as a sock of User:Davkal? Alternatively, could you semi-protect WT:FRINGE? We need to stop letting this banned user post. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidance

Please review my comments today at Talk:Atropa belladonna. I think I am being cordial and on-point. However, ScienceApologist keeps "hiding" my comments, referring to them as disruptive. And now he has posted (vengefully, IMHO) that AN/I trying to get me topic banned. And is actively canvassing for support [40][41]. Honestly, this editor is making Wikipedia a rather unpleasant experience for me. I guess I am looking for some expert guidance here on how I should I respond (if at all)? Thanks in advance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking at that, and the other pages mentioned in the ANI thread. I'm still investigating, but my advice is to keep your cool, don't take any bait, stay civil, don't return any accusations. Just keep on working to improve Wikipedia, and keep your comments focused on the article/guideline at hand. Remember that no one is ever banned for what they're accused of, they're only banned for what they actually do. As long as you don't give anyone anything to diff as misconduct, you will probably be fine. Also, be sure that you are continuing to actually work on articles. If your contrib list is just full of dispute-related edits and comments at talkpages, that can be a problem. But if you show that you're actually working on the encyclopedia, that helps strengthen your reputation. If unsure what to work on, check one of the WP:CLEANUP categories, click on Special:Random a few times (I usually find something I want to fix or at least tag for cleanup within a dozen clicks), or maybe fill in some redlinks with stubs or redirects somewhere. For example, there are now multiple redlinks at Chiropractic#References. Some of them probably already have existing articles, there's just an odd redlinked abbreviation which needs to be set up as a redirect. If you could fix some of those, it would be really helpful (and might also take your mind off of other things). Best, --Elonka 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent advice. If you check my edit history, you will see that I am active with monitoring new articles and giving them their first once-over to see what they are lacking, how they can be improved, or if they qualify for speedy deletion. I also like doing random spell-checking. (which appeals very much to my anal-retentive nature!) Additionally, I am kind of a one-man, unofficial welcoming committee at Wikipedia. I've probably welcomed hundreds of new IPs and Users. I'm pretty much done for today, but I promise to look into the red links at Chiropractic#References next time I log in. Thanks again for your guidance. It is genuinely appreciated. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I actually had the time and brain-energy to start one new article which will help with the red links: Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. It's just a stub for now, but I am sure it will be expanded quickly. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job, make more.  :) --Elonka 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Forest of red links

Re this change to Chiropractic, which I reverted: could you please follow up at Talk:Chiropractic #Forest of red links? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaack, after I created the section Talk:Chiropractic #Forest of red links, I noticed you had already put an {{inuse}} template on that talk page. Sorry about that. I'll stop editing that talk page now. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I should warn you that the talk page is busy and huge, and it's been that way for months. I'd be curious to know how the archiving bot got "stuck", and how you fixed it; when you do fix it can you please report on the fix in Talk:Chiropractic? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I've gone ahead and protected the page for now so no one else can add anything. Also, I'd appreciate if you'd revert yourself on the redlinks. There is method to my madness. :) Most of the redlinks won't be there for more than a day or so. In fact, while I'm archiving, it would be helpful if you could scan through them. Most of them just need simple redirects to existing articles that don't have those abbreviations setup as redirects yet. For others, simple stubs saying, "This is the journal we're talking about" would be really helpful. --Elonka 20:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have followed up further in Talk:Chiropractic #Forest of red links. Eubulides (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As for Spine J: Chiropractic and many other medical articles use the standard journal abbreviations of Pubmed. To find out what an abbreviation stands for, visit the Pubmed web site, change the Search pulldown menu to "Journals", type the journal abbreviation in the text field, and hit the "Go" button. As of this writing if you search with "Spine" you'll see both journals, each with their (distinct) pISSN number. You can use the "Title Abbreviation" fields of the results to disambiguate them. Sorry about creating the red link, but I really would rather not get sucked into the project of writing all those articles on journals. Good luck! Eubulides (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this issue further at Talk:Chiropractic #Forest of red links. I won't edit war over this, but I would appreciate a discussion of the points raised there; the NPOV concerns are real. Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ronz et al

Thanks Elonka, I shall keep at an eye out. Cheers! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcfrk

Hiya, Elonka. By accident today I found that this user has had a rather nasty personal attack against me posted on his user page since April. I wonder if you could please remove it? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ick, and yes, I have removed the statement, and cautioned the user. I'll keep an eye on his talkpage and the WikiProject discussion, but if there are any further problems, please let me know. --Elonka 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this speedy action. Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message with Carl, whom I know to be a neutral, cautious, and knowledgeable administrator, concerning your actions in my user space. In the meantime, I have reverted your edit as being of questionable legality. If you permit my analogy, in the real world what you have done would be analogous to a break-in into another person's house and removal of property (or, perhaps, to a big nation invading its neighbour and replacing a democratically elected goverment it disagrees with). If you have concerns about the content of my user page, please, feel free to express them at my talk page, accompanied with detailed quotations from the relevant Wikipedia policies. If you feel very strongly about keeping Wikipedia a better place for everyone, may I also suggest removing MathSci's slanders, insinuations, and mockery left at various talk pages and embedded into multiple edit summaries? While this would require a certain time commitment, perhaps, you will come to understand my point? Best wishes, Arcfrk (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. Arcfrk restored the personal attack to his talk page. It was subsequently removed by User:Dreadstar. What he has written above seems to be pure fabrication, since it is unsupported by my edit history. I wonder if something could be done? Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcfrk's action was clearly out of line, and I support Dreadstar's re-removal of the comment. If there are further incidents of incivility, Arcfrk will likely be blocked. However, please be sure to hold up your end of the bargain. It is essential that your own interactions with him be extremely civil as well. Hopefully with increased civility all around, we'll be able to get past this dispute and move forward. It looks like you and Arcfrk have a lot of things in common, so will very possibly be working together on other mathematics articles in the future. I recommend that you try to find a way to work together in a harmonious manner. --Elonka 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your message. Please look at Arcfrk's message on User:CBM's talk page [42]. Also look at the new message on his user page. He does not seem to understand how WP functions. He seems [refactored] to need help [refactored]. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Try replacing the last sentence of your post with, "He seems to be new here, and probably requires mentoring". I also recommend reading WP:BITE. --Elonka 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He is not new (March 10, 2007); what made you think so? Nevertheless I have refactored my comment as requested. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I could tell by the way he was talking about things. On digging deeper, I see that my intuition was correct. He has a (relatively) low number of edits, about 2,000,[43] and very limited participation in Wikipedia space, except for the math project. Such editors who spend all their time in articles and not disputes, often react very strongly when they are challenged, since they are in unfamiliar territory and do not understand the wiki culture. I find that rather than jumping to the assumption that they are "problems", that it is better to try and work with them as though they are just new and don't understand the ropes yet. A trick that I sometimes use (works for me, might not for others), is to picture an editor as a very very senior academic, someone who used to be sharp as a tack, but has gotten on a bit in years, and is a bit befuddled and cranky and not understanding this "damn internet thing". That usually helps me to calm down and treat someone with great patience, since I can picture them as a confused but respected elder. In most cases, treating someone with patience does the trick, and then once they get the hang of "wiki-speak", problems evaporate. And if it doesn't work, well, at least I tried.  :) --Elonka 00:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I just reviewed almost all his edits. He stated at one point on his user page that he had prior experience from another wikipedia, possibly ru.wikipedia.org. He has not created many substantial articles, mostly stubs: Affine quantum group is typical. It is uninformative, poorly written and unsourced. It would be quite easy to write quite an interesting article on this subject, with some actual content and many obvious references, starting for example from the lectures of Jimbo and Miwa. One thing I also noticed is that he did not like it when I added technical content, e.g. when I expanded Boundedly generated group, Building (mathematics), Orbifold and above all Differential geometry of surfaces. What I find interesting is that, even when the material for the latter was in Surfaces, it included facts about Gaussian curvature being given by the Jacobian of the Gauss map, a complete proof of Gauss-Bonnet and Hadamard's theorem for negatively curved surfaces; lo and behold a few months later he starts suggesting the same material for Gaussian curvature, giving no hint that it has already been added quite accurately elsewhere by me. This does not seem very helpful editing practice, particularly since he has on several occasions expressed strong views on this particular content. When I gave my graduate course in February in the UK, I included material on amenable groups which I simultaneously added to the WP; in particular Guivarch's proof of the Tit's alternative using the mutliplicative ergodic theorem of Osselodets. Lo and behold a month later, Arcfrk has somehow for the first time started editing ergodic theory articles on the multiplicative ergodic theorem and Osselodets. Most of my mathematical edits are closely related to courses that I gave or will give in France and in Britain: they centre on the interaction between geometric group theory, operator algebras and unitary group representations. These editing habits will not change and Arcfrk is entirely wrong to flatter himself that I follow him around. At the moment I am heading towards the Selberg trace formula for SL(2,R) and SL(2,C) which I'll lecture next year: that explains some of my current topics. Since he arrived in March 2007 we have had very few interactions. But each time he has overreacted, perhaps because he was assuming a position of authority. Despite the fact that he jokingly implied in an interchange with User:Paul August that he might be a Fields medallist, this does not seem to be the case. It seems he does not like the fact that I write long and detailed articles on difficult topics. That seems to be something he has not done so far. Although his predilection seems to be for writing mathematical stubs, rating articles and rewriting ledes, I think he should be more careful in making blanket criticisms of longer, more in-depth articles which as far as I can tell seems to be his main issue with me. Mathsci (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

re: black stone

It was stupid. Don't even tell me it wasn't. I can maybe see if it was simple grammar error, or typo, but that was so absurd, it boggled my mind. Why type 8 characters when you can just push backspace 4 times? Red tape at its finest. I can't assume good faith unless people start using common sense. I can, however, assume that I will die before this happens, so its a moot point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.49.139 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the sources in question?

The sources in question did not mention "naturopathic" preparations, and according to the agreement I worked out with Ludwigs on the talk page, we were going to mention naturopathy in the article. I think you should reconsider this carefully. Perhaps you should ask an outside administrator to review the sources in question and see if they really do deal with naturopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I read one of the sources,[44] and it seemed perfectly reliable for much of the information in that paragraph. Perhaps a {{fact}} tag could have been added after the word naturopathy, but just leaving the entire paragraph unsourced was not appropriate. My feeling is that you're too invested in this particular topic, and I recommend that you just take a break for a week, and then come back fresh. --Elonka 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I reported the incident here. I don't think you know what the difference between naturopathy and homeopathy is, do you? Nor did you read the previous discussion between Ludwigs and myself on that very talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking an action based on content, I am taking an action based on user conduct, and Wikipedia policies. When an editor deletes multiple reliable sources from an article, and replaces them with a {{fact}} tag, that is disruptive. You have already been blocked three times this month, and you are spending way more time arguing at talkpages and administrator boards, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs), than actually working on articles. My advice to you is take a break. Work on some other article for a week. A brief page ban is not that big a deal, just look at it as a temporary breather. You've done some great work on a lot of articles on Wikipedia, but sometimes we just get so close to a particular subject that we just can't think about anything else. I'm trying to help you break that cycle. Take a break, work on one of the other 2+ million articles on Wikipedia for a few days. --Elonka 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So you admit that the "reliable sources" do not support the sentence in question considering that naturopathy is not the same thing as homeopathy? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In User:Levine2112's last post to Talk:Atropa belladonna he states that

provides us with a guideline on how to present point of views but not necessarily general information."

However, WP:PROMINENCE states:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.

Can you explain this to him?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And now look what's happened:

[45]

Can you explain to me what a "naturopathic preparation" is? Why aren't you looking at the contributions of others?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reacting to every edit. Just give the article a week to develop, and then come back and look at it later. The world's not going to end in the meantime. Aren't there many other articles which would benefit from your attention? --Elonka 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah Mediation

In this diff [46] ChrisO calls our side's view demonstrating "pathological thinking." --Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please challenge it on the spot, and diff it to his talkpage with your concerns. --Elonka 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Outing

Hi Elonka. Since you've taken an interest in SA, would you mind mentioning to the poster of this comment that outing SA's identity is not appropriate on-wiki? Regards, Antelan^talk 20:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we even be linking to it?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Atropa Belladonna

If you're topic banning SA, then User:Ludwigs2 deserve equal treatment. He simply reverts to unsourced statements. If you're going to harsh to one side of the POV, it's only fair to be harsh to the "other" side. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (not about being harsh, but being fair). Rest assured though, that I am looking at the contribs of all involved. Which doesn't mean I'm going to ban everyone in a "shock and awe" simultaneous attack. I move more slowly than that. I'm very new to this particular topic area (the advantages and disadvantages of being an "uninvolved" admin). So it's going to take some time to come up to speed. Be patient with me.  :) I'm confident that you'll like the longterm result though. --Elonka 20:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just thought you were a bit harsh on SA. It just seems that admins are unnecessarily tough on SA. He's probably at the point where he just accepts the blocks as the price for editing here. LOL. So you're new to this topic? You might want to start drinking heavily in advance. Just a recommendation!!!!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I concur with SA's comment below. I happen to think that SA is valuable around here, but I also think you are too (I promise, that wasn't a**-kissing. Really.). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I trust you

The current version of the atropa article is actually much better. If nothing else, at least your actions got the attention of some other editors. In the future, I think it would have been better if you didn't make content accusations before very carefully researching the topic. Despite your claims that the ban is about editor "behavior", claiming that something is a source for a statement is a content statement. Moreover, you could have gotten me to stay away from the article by requesting it rather than banning me.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and for future situations, I'll try a softer approach with you (btw, do you use IMs?). I disagree though about requiring an administrator to research the content. I don't feel that administrators should be content experts in (most) controversial situations. Indeed, that's often a daunting hurdle, with megabytes of discussion and dozens of complex sources. Better (in my opinion) is for administrators to focus on specific types of user conduct, and then guide editors towards resolving their own battles. Of course, each administrator has to find their own style, but my style generally runs through the following points, starting from the time that I first get involved with an article:

• Are editors being civil?
• Are editors explaining their edits?
• Are edits being explained at talk, or are people just battling it out in edit summaries?
• Are editors using sources?
• Are the sources good ones?
• Are the sources being used in the right way?

• Is every new edit, being accompanied with a solid source?
• Are the new edits actually reflecting what's in the source?
• Is anyone deleting reliable sources?

• Is everyone being allowed to edit freely, or are some editors using "revert" as a weapon?

Once the above are addressed, then I might move on to questions of WP:UNDUE, or dealing with WP:SPA editors. But the vast majority of the time, if I stick with the above, that addresses most problems, and stabilizes things enough that the existing editors at the page can make necessary improvements. I've used this technique with success in multiple ethnic disputes, and now I'm dipping my toe into the pseudoscience pool to see if the methods still hold up.

For more details, you may wish to read Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes, of which I wrote a fair amount, as part of my involvement with the WP:WORKGROUP. If you see places where you think there are holes, feel free to bring them up at the talkpage. :) Another quickref that I'm working on (still messy) is here: User:Elonka/Notes. --Elonka 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that administrators need to be content experts to be good administrators. I do think they should be careful with their rationales. It would be great if we could get outside competent eyes to look at problem pages like what happened at Deadly Nightshade. Unfortunately, what too often happens is that we get another set of problematic editors who end up driving controversial articles into tailspins. This article was obscure enough and attracted enough of the good kind of editors to be saved. I think this was more of a coincidence than anything else, though. I do not use instant messaging, but when I'm active you can easily get in touch with me via my talkpage.

I'm not a big fan of the order in which you look at things, but that's just me. I know I'm the odd one out when it comes to Wikipedia. I think that content expertise and sourcing evaluation should come before all else. Most everyone else disagrees (they see Wikipedia more as a community than a place to be an encyclopedist). The issue is that many editors know that your list of questions are what are being looked for and so have become expert in making it seem like they are the reasonable ones. The issue with your focus on sourcing is that editors may cherry-pick sources and make it seem like censorship is happening when in fact what is happening is an attempt to conform the article to a state that is more in line with the goal of making Wikipedia a mainstream, non-innovative reference work. What looks to you like "deleting a reliable source" is actually removing the misuse of a source. It's the difference between someone reading a term paper and grading based on the number of footnotes and someone actually looking at the footnote, getting the source, reading the source, and comparing the source to the text and the context of the text. The former is easy (and is essentially what you say you are doing). The latter is hard and is, ideally, what every excellent editor should be doing.

The problem is when you get editors who are not committed to this kind of scholarship. Levine2112 is a good example of this. Way back in January I removed almost every mention of homeopathy from pages on plants and chemicals. However, there were some articles where homeopathy was included because the sources seemed to indicate that it should be included. Domesticated sheep is a good example of this. Homeopathy is included there because sources devoted to domesticated sheep made it clear that homeopathy was an important part in many sheep producers ideas of alternative veterinary medicine. There was also sources that indicated it was not scientific. We have an excellent mention of this now in that article.

Contrast that with atropa belladonna. This article had sources to all kinds of homeopaths tooting their horns as to how great this plant was in their ridiculous dilutions. Of course, they aren't reliable sources. Then some homeopath stumbled upon the Oxford Book of Health Foods. As you read, there is an off-handed mention of homeopathy in there. However, I argued that this singular source was simply not enough to establish enough prominence for homeopathy. After all, the importance of homeopathy to that plant seems minimal at best. The other source being used was written by a homeopath and shouldn't be included in any case.

The issue is not with using OUP: it's with using OUP to source a claim about homeopathy: a claim that is obviously anecdotal in nature and is obviously not the intent of the authors to be used as a source for claiming homeopathic use is somehow important to the plant. This argument fell on deaf ears to the point of Levine2112 arguing that there was no "policy" which said this so therefore I wasn't allowed to make the argument: or anyway that the argument wouldn't hold any water. I pointed out WP:PROMINENCE. Levine said that this doesn't apply because I made the redirect. It's obvious that there needs to be some kind of standard for determining how much weight should be given to a fringe subject on a mainstream page. How important is homeopathy to the subject of atropa belladonna? By one measure, we could look at all the sources we have for atropa belladonna and ask how much of those sources are devoted to homeopathy. The answer is such a tiny amount that less than one word should be devoted to homeopathy on our article on the plant. Undue weight excludes homeopathy, is my argument. The counter is "No it doesn't".

That's the source of my frustration. There is no way to actually discuss matters with Levine2112. One way you can tell this is that he never admits when he makes a mistake. I get the impression that he thinks he is the best editor at Wikipedia, and I'm tired of his haughty attitude. It's obstructionist, grating, and frankly disruptive in the worst sort of way. It makes people waste their time.

That's all I want to say about this matter. I'm pissed off at this editor and I don't know what to do to get the community to notice how awful he is. Thanks for reading anyway.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And how does the discussion at the NPOV board fit into this?[47] The consensus there seemed to be that a mention of homeopathy at the nightshade article was appropriate. --Elonka 00:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The seeming "consensus" is skewed by two damning issues:

1. There was a lot of "me too" !votes from homeopathy-promoters (a number of whom are now banned or effectively banned).
2. The question was phrased poorly. The issue is not "are there any NPOV problems with this statement?" The question really is "What is the appropriate amount of weight homeopathy should receive in an article about Atropa belladonna and why?" People need to provide their reasons for explaining what the appropriate amount of weight is. As it is, I have seen only one person offer an alternative measurement for the weight of homeopathy on plant and chemical articles (User:Filll) and his suggestion was shot down.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite news

Someone is changing the Template:Cite news without consensus, its been screwed up all day. Can you take a peek. They are experimenting, but it is radically altering the look of references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)