User talk:Elonka/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

'remove from voting'

I actually meant the same thing as you, by 'remove' I meant 'remove from the tally'. — neuro^(talk) 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming you wrote that before you saw here, if not you should know that indenting them is actually what I was doing anyway. — neuro^(talk) 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like we have a good compromise? :) --Elonka 01:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think we need to compromise, from what I could tell indenting the !votes was what was wanted from both sides. Have I misunderstood? — neuro^(talk) 02:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was concerned because you'd posted a note at his talkpage telling him to "stop", so I thought you were telling him to stop voting completely.[1] Perhaps you might want to soften that a bit? --Elonka 02:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well yes, I still disagree with that, but I'm happy to continue indenting. An acceptable compromise. — neuro^(talk) 02:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

*Hits self*

One tiny little thing that I should said in the first place here...can the date be in the international style (7 December 1941) to follow the article's date style? Thanks and apologies... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am but a servant of {{editprotected}}. Done.  ;) --Elonka 02:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol thanks a lot! :D —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

arbcom talk page

hi Elonka. I have raised an issue here. I suspect that you will not agree with me, but I hope you will agree at least that it is a topic worth discussing. I am hoping to encourage wide discussion and even if you and I disagree i hope you will register your own view or even analysis. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

IanVista

Elonka due to an unfortunate set of currcumstances, I will not be able to deliver the bot I promised before 21 Dec. Also, I am moving my talk to here. Thank you.IanLAMP (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ACE canvassing allegations

You wrote on AN, "Some of the people who are doing this aggressive canvassing are people who should know better: Admins, and one is even a Checkuser." Did you report them all by name to the Arbitration Committee? rootology (C)(T) 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Elonka 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you have different opinions!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elonka/ACE2008 You wrote "For a general real world analogy, ArbCom is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia."

I asked Risker a question on his talk page not knowing what you had said above. Part of his reply was "My first reaction is that it's a considerable exaggeration of the importance of the Arbitration Committee to compare it to the Supreme Court"

Of course, I now see that you don't support him for ArbCom! Chergles (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a very very general analogy. I just use the term "Supreme Court" as a quick way of describing the general place of the ArbCom in the scheme of things here. But Risker is correct, that it is indeed an exaggeration. I'm open to other suggestions for easily understandable analogies! Any ideas? --Elonka 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines

Thank you for the note that I had reverted more than 3 times in the last 24 hours. After looking at the history, I agree that I have done so. However, I do not believe that it represents an edit war, with the changes that I have reverted being those that represented vandalism either intentionally or unintentionally (One of those for example deleted more than three quarters of the article.)

The Majority of the edits to this file are by non-registered users and there has been a significant amount of mutual reversion by non-registered users between those that have a version with Alpha Kappa Rho and without Tau Gamma Phi and those without Alpha Kappa Rho and with Tau Gamma Phi (two fraternities with significant dislike of each other in the Philippines).

Having recently had an AfD end with a no resolution result, I would be happy to take any suggestions that would limit the amount of vandalism and AKP vs TGF edit wars. At one point it had semi-protection, I'd like to see that returned. I'll be happy to post to the talk page a message seeking discussion, but what has been posted there has not gotten much response.Naraht (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, USER:71.190.2.49 just [2] reverted to his last edit. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Roz, Thanx for the revert.Naraht (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken it to AN3. I'm counting at least 19 reverts, four since his last block for edit-warring expired. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon for 72 hours. As for Naraht, I hear what you're saying about reverting vandalism, and I agree that those kinds of reverts are exempt from 3RR. However, some of your reverts do not appear to be vandalism reverts.[3] So my advice is that unless it's really obvious vandalism, try to avoid using the "undo" button. Instead, the better course there is to follow dispute resolution procedures, or steps for dealing with disruptive editors: Bring things up at the talkpage, and explain your concern. If other editors agree with your course of action, then you can proceed "per talkpage consensus". Or, if no one replies in a reasonable amount of time, then you can go ahead and revert later, "per talkpage". At that point the burden is on the other editor in the edit war to actually engage in discussion. If they do so, then do your best to engage in good faith discussion towards finding a compromise (you may be able to find something that both of you can agree with). On the other hand, if the other editor persists in reverting without talking about what they're doing, then they may be blocked. Make sense?  :) --Elonka 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. On a side note, AN3 is not for reporting 3RR and edit-warring violations. Given how simple it is to determine strict 3RR violations, and how complicated it can be to decide if someone is truly edit-warring, perhaps there should be changes made to the report format? --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally in the loop, but there seems to be a movement towards making things more automated. A new page/bot (still very buggy) is generating reports at User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations . --Elonka 03:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The example that you give as not being vandalism [4], I *did* count as such. They inserted Scouts Royale Brotherhood, by overwriting CB, which was in the right place alphabetically. While it is true that Scouts Royale Brotherhood probably belongs on the list, it does not belong there by overwriting another one. (Whether it belongs there has to do with whether this list is college only and whether or not you consider the dominant piece of SRB to be the one which is high school only and views itself as flowing into APO or the one that is willing to recruit at the college level (I'm having a rather detailed discussion about SRB elsewhere)).

The biggest problem in discussing things on the talk page is that almost all of the recent editing which has dealt with information rather than wiki-fixing has been by IP address, what isn't is by people who have registered accounts specifically to do their fraternity and who are attempting to delete either AKP or TGF. I'm not really sure there are that many who would actually respond to a posting on the talk page, but I'll try.Naraht (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They deleted CB, you deleted SARABA, and others.[5] From an administrator's view, all the edits are disruptive, but I wouldn't call them vandalism. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. It's definitely a content dispute though. What would have been better for you to do would be to move the SARABA info down to the correct place on the list, and then replace CB, rather than just revert and remove their information entirely. You could also add a {{fact}} tag to the SARABA entry, or any other entries that you have concerns about. It's not going to break Wikipedia if we have a few extra entries on the list for awhile, to calm the waters and give time to build consensus on how things should be handled. --Elonka 13:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt to follow your advice on this. I'm not sure this will help calm the waters, but I'll give it a few weeks before trying to request a semi-protect on editing.Naraht (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I spent quite a bit of time today working on the List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines page today, could you let me know your opinion? I think I've figured out my major issue with the page. I'm concerned that there really isn't anyone else who cares enough about the page to maintain it and without some level of maintenance that it will be quite reasonable for it to be deleted. I know that no one owns any pages, but it doesn't mean that I don't care more about some that are on my watchlist than others...Naraht (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The main thing it needs, is more sources, to prove that these organizations are notable. Right now it's running afoul of WP:NOT#INFO. Wikipedia really isn't intended to be a directory, especially for a series of non-notable clubs. Perhaps this information would be better suited to a webpage, or something like Wikia? --Elonka 18:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently working on references. I've gotten all the way through the Alphas and working on the Betas. When I get done with the references on the list of General Fraternities, I'll go back and trim them.(starting with anything where the best link I find is on Friendster and going from there) Somewhat non-intuitively, the specialty (Medicine, Law & Engineering) groups are better known. I do believe that the list should exist in some form, there certainly are more than a dozen groups with Wikipedia pages.

I have spent a *considerable* time looking for any sort of National Conference of Greek Letter Organizations in the Philippines similar to North-American Interfraternity Conference as a objective standard of what to keep with no luck. And getting rid of all of the page in its entirety seems somewhat americano-centric. If anything, being a member of a Fraternity means *more* in the Philippines then it does here. (For example, members of Fraternities in the Philippine parliment will cross party lines to vote for bills proposed by fraternity brothers and it has affected people surviving when captured by the New People's Army with brothers saving brothers.) I've given thought to writing a "Fraternities and Sororities in the Philippines" article to describe the history and differences, but I just don't know enough.

On the bright side, I haven't had to deal with significant vandalism this month...Naraht (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Scythian77

Hi, Elonka. I was about to post a warning message to User:Scythian77 for pushing unsourced information and posting irrelevant accusative edit summaries [6] and messages [7]. Then, i realized that you sent a warning before. Maybe it's better for you to warn this user again about the basic wikipedia policies. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Recently, he was also warned by User:Kafka Liz, because of his removal of sourced information and cited references regarding to this edit. I'm still in favor of your intervention, since this user simply ignores comments. Regards. E104421 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I left a note on his talkpage, though I see that he's not the only one engaged in the dispute here. Remember, it takes at least two to edit-war! --Elonka 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My Reverts

Usually when I don't have an edit summary its because its blatant vandalism, POV or unsourced additions. I will try and use the edit summary from now on and and contribute to the talk pages. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll make things easier on us admins.  :) --Elonka 21:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Halevy

Hi Elonka. I'm responding to this message, re "Jeff Halevy": Notability

Hi Chad.  :) I'm one of the volunteer admins here, and wanted to talk to you about the Halevy page. The reason it keeps being deleted so fast, is because it's written in a very advertising/spammy kind of language. However, if you'd be willing to put a bit more effort into it, we might be able to get a "real" article out of this, since there do appear to be some sources available. Would you be interested in receiving some tutoring on how to write for the encyclopedia? If so, please reply, either here or on my talkpage and let's talk.  :) --Elonka 21:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know whatever I need to change and I will gladly meet your criteria. Thanks!

Chad hermanson (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I revised the "Jeff Halevy" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Halevy), changing the language and providing additional resources. Does it now meet your criteria? Thanks!

Chad hermanson (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it's still written like obvious spam. I've put some tags on it, but to be honest, it needs an entire rewrite, and still might be deleted at anytime. I'm glad that it has sources, but all of the "peacock" language needs to be removed. On Wikipedia, articles should be written in a very neutral fashion, sort of like a legal deposition. We're not trying to promote, we're just trying to describe and summarize. --Elonka 17:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I just checked the "Jeff Halevy" page and it looks pretty cleaned up now. Is it ok, or can I further edit to meet any uncovered criteria. Thanks for your help! Chad hermanson (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PHG

Hello. Sorry, I missed your comments on my talk page. In answer to your question, I would be willing to contribute as a complete non-expert (Adam Bishop is the expert). I have looked a little at PHG's recent edits. It seems that he has made a lot of useful contributions in military history (various gunsmiths), but letting a non-event such as the Franco-Mongol alliance (I came across the Schein article in my Ibelin searches) spawn the spate of single purpose spin-off articles that it did was, as you, Shell, Adam and others have pointed out, major disruption. And, as you and Adam have said, his recent edits to the talk page of Guy of Ibelin (died 1304) show that he has not understood this part of WP:UNDUE. Although PHG may not realise this, the same problems have arisen with other articles: poor sourcing; spin-off articles about a major person written around a minor theme; and articles relying on primary sources. Might WP:WPMH not possibly be able to coach him? They seem extremely well organised and his interests seem to lie within that project. Although I'll be on a wikibreak for the Lent term (as happened this year), this will in fact make it easier to help out (because of the Cambridge UL). I believe the topic ban on crusader-related articles is still justified, but I believe somehow he could be guided elsewhere by the excellent team on WP:WPMH. Best wishes, Mathsci (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added my evidence now, taking into account Angusmclellan's role as mentor and the fact that PHG has explained that his first language is French. It did bring a smile to my face when I read the suggestion that you and Folantin might have been part of a tag team :) Regards, Mathsci (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

More ice cream needed

First, please feel free to tell me if you don’t want to deal with this anymore: I would totally understand. I’ve noticed that over the last few weeks, Nickhh has been accused of three editors of wikistalking. Though I saw it as it unfolded 1) I had no desire to intervene, as I believe Nick and I are both best served by avoiding each other where possible and 2) I did not – and have not – examined any of the claims of the three editors who accused him of stalking. I am pretty certain I was right to make the charge when I did, but cannot speak for the others. Though Nick has been hinting darkly that some sort of coordinated effort may be afoot among the four of us, I can assure you it is not.

That said, Nick thought to include me in a taunting recent edit summary [8] (he included you, too, just so you don’t feel left out). He also swept away the allegations and comments (including yours, which is his right) with the edit summary “Rm f#ckwittery and general random smears from my talk page. This is a talk page for occasional, constructive communication, not a noticeboard for people to vomit nonsense onto” (which is not). I don’t know what the best thing to do is, but I hope something can be done.

Oh, and I’d like him to know I’m posting this, but don’t want to post to his talk page, as I believe he doesn’t want me to. So… if you could at least let him know that, I’d appreciate it. Thanks. IronDuke 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's not that I don't want to deal with it, it's just a time issue at the moment. I'll try to take a look, but if there's something urgent going on, you may wish to try one of the other steps in WP:DR or WP:DE. --Elonka 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look. I agree that he's been somewhat uncivil,[9][10] though it does seem that a couple people keep wanting to poke him through the bars and then complain if he growls. I also agree that this edit summary was unhelpful, where he said he was going to revert someone "here too".[11] Then again, the actual deletion of the prod was legitimate, and it does look like the page turned into a valid stub. As for his most recent edit summary, it was rude, but if I stretch the assumption of good faith just a bit, it does look like an effort to wipe the slate clean and start over. Perhaps try to give him another chance? If there are further problems though, do let me know. Now, mint chocolate chip?  :) --Elonka 05:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you have not been following my posts at all. I quite clearly stated here that I was interested in vanilla with Reese’s mashed in, not mint chocolate chip. Focus, Elonka: please. (;)) In all seriousness, I’m happy to have you be the ombudsperson on this, or to take it somewhere else, but I’d like some sense of which way you’d like to go. I usually prefer to have the same admin on the same problems, as it saves having to reinvent the wheel. But I completely understand if you’re busy, and will get other opinions if you so desire. Oh – I will just say one thing, though: Again, without commenting on the merits of anyone’s claims against Nick but my own, it matters not whether the stalking edits are “correct” or not. I’m quite certain that if I took a gander at the last ten articles Nick edited, I could find much to “correct.” Even if consensus favored my reverting him, I’d expect him to be very annoyed at my interference, and rightly so. IronDuke

Okay... I'm assuming by your lack of response that you do not want to deal with this issue further. If I am in error, I'm sure you'll let me know. Thanks. IronDuke 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was quite clear that I did not think there was co-ordination as such, but made the point somewhere in all that mess that these things have a momentum all of their own. Once you have one complaint it just tends to encourage others to post their own, on the tiniest pretext. Once you have about 4, people then start whispering "see, that guy has form" and it would no doubt be flagged up were I to ever be dragged to AE or ANI. Particularly when I'd actually done nothing wrong in each case, that's pretty galling. Mud tends to stick, even if it's an especially smeary type of mud. That prediction was then proven right most recently when CM came to my page to accuse me of "stalking", and claimed that my talk page appeared to show that I was in the habit of doing it. As for my removal of CM's prod, that was an entirely correct action on my part, as you appear to acknowledge Elonka. I was actually very wary of doing it because I had (as I have admitted, in response to CM's complaint) spotted it in his edit history (contributions pages are open, it's what you do with that info that matters) and was curious as to why he was adding a prod to that person's page. However I apologised for the revert in my edit summary, in a bid to avoid making it a flare issue, not in a bid to be "unhelpful". To repeat again - I do not systematically follow, and have not systematically followed (with one or two legitimate exceptions in the past), others editors to articles, especially not with the intent of causing trouble. In fact I usually try to avoid those editors whose POVs and talk page attitude (which I will admit I will rise to) to be unhelpful. By contrast others seem to have an unhealthy interest in my talk page. And of course I am totally within my rights to remove from my talk page a whole string of sections titled "Are you a Hezbollah operative?", "Stalker" etc etc. And to describe them for what they are when doing so. At least this time round Elonka you've managed to pass comment on those who post such abusive nonsense on my talk page, even if you've seen fit to compare me to some sort of angry captive bear while doing it - as opposed to someone who simply hits back when they are subject to flimsy accusations and direct abuse, and doesn't go running to Mummy or Daddy to complain about the merest perceived slight. And confession time - I only spotted this thread because I looked at your contributions history Elonka, after noticing you were cropping up suddenly on pages I'd edited recently. I hope that's OK ... --Nickhh (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not really addressing what I wrote, but no matter. I do have a question, though, long as I have your attention: would you like me to advise you on your talk page when I am discussing you somewhere onwiki, or would you prefer I stay off? Thanks. IronDuke 18:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm assuming you do not want me to tell you on your talk page if I'm mentioning you on, say, a noticeboard (which I have no current intention of doing). If I am in error, please let me know. Thanks. IronDuke 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bayrak Again

I don't want to get too drawn into this, but almost all of his edits are looking unhelpful, and pointy, though in a minor, annoying way, rather than in a vastly disruptive way. But look at these two reversions i did on edits of his from today. [[12]] and [[13]] . Either his English is so bad that he can't understand requests to desist from this sort of thing (his claim that the coptic presence in kuwait, which is not controversial, was not well sourced verges on a lie. Couldn't be clearer in the linked text); or it's good enough to understand the need to desist, but he doesn't care. Either way, it's not looking like productive editing is going to come out of this).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I'm not understanding his reason for removing the Coptic number, but I'll also freely admit that I'm not familiar with the subject matter. Could you please start a thread on the article talkpage about it? I'm not seeing any discussion there, which makes things even more difficult to follow. --Elonka 08:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of his edits ARE hard to figure out (for instance, he inexplicably changed "Sassanids were the fourth persian dynasty" to "Sassanids were the third persian dynasty" in some obscure article. Have no clue what's right there). But this one is ridiculous: The article said there were 65,000 copts in kuwait; he removed this from the article, saying the information wasn't cited (even uncited, it should have been fact-tagged then... anyone with a passing knowledge of kuwait, the tiny country he claims to live in, knows that there's a sizable community of copts.) At any rate, there was a reliable source used, with the unambiguous claim of "there are 65,000 copts living in kuwait." No familiarity with the subject matter needed (but "copt" is the term for eastern orthodox of egyptian decent; it's the term used in arabic as well).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, the source[14] did not say "there are 65,000 copts living in Kuwait". Or at least, not that I could see. It did say that there exists in Kuwait a "Coptic Orthodox Church with an estimated 65,000 members". Bayrak's edit summary when he removed the information was, "the source didnt mention there 65,000 copts in kuwait it talking about orthodox."[15] So again, I'm not personally familiar enough with the subject matter to exactly understand what the difference is (or if there's a difference), but he may or may not have a plausible complaint that there is original research going on. However, I did drop a note to his talkpage that he should not remove citations in the future, and that if he has a concern about citations, to bring them up at the talkpage first. --Elonka 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka -- Are you saying that "65,000 copts" does not equal "A coptic orthodox church with 65,000 members?" As a matter of fact, usage, etc... Copt=Orthodox (though of course there are other sub-categories of Orthodox christians who aren't copts, i.e. Russian, greek, chaldean, etc. etc.). If the source had said without specificity "there are x number of orthodox christians in kuwait" he would be correct in stating "that says nothing about the numbers of copts." However, it specifically qualifies "orthodox" with copt. As general background for you in Kuwait, as in much of the Gulf, educated Egyptians make up most of the middle management on construction sites, in government offices, in large retail stores, etc... since about 10% of egyptians are copts (and make up a disproportionate number of the educated folks that get these jobs) there are lots of them in the Gulf which is a well-known, well-cited fact. Again, all of this stuff is small beer. There is no way Bayrak is unaware of the large number of copts in kuwait. (It's possible, though i've no idea, that he's one of the many kuwaitis who think only muslims should be allowed/acknowledged in the country). At any rate, here's an article from the Kuwait Times this october. [[16]] It also says the country has 65,000 copts.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have no familiarity with the content. I'm not the person you need to convince, I'm just the person trying to give more structure to the discussions, to help resolve the dispute. As an administrator, I have to stay neutral, with no preference either way on what content goes into the article. My concern was that you just claimed to quote from a source, but when I checked the source for myself, that quote was not in the source. When you quote from a source, please be careful to only quote exactly what is in the source. A good policy to read, is WP:SYNTH. As for moving forward, thanks for providing a new source. I'd recommend adding that one to the Copt page, and hopefully that will resolve things once and for all.  :) --Elonka 18:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the relevant policies on synth, etc. Too much exactitude is a semantic minefield (i.e. the source said "roughly 2,000" not "approximately 2,000" -- which is about the level of difference between "coptic orthodox" and "copt." That is, in both cases, it is a distinction without any difference). I was trying to demonstrate that his edits are in fact pointy. I understand i've failed and i won't belabor it further. Go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re

Elonka, please check the "unintentionally" part of my comment. My point was that this is unfortunately the result, and not the intention of Mervyn's comments. I thought this was clear enough, and that is why I feel surprised by your comment in my talk page. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't Mervyn be advised not to speak improperly about other people's homelands? I understand he is new around, and he has a lot to learn (and your mentorship to him as well as your experience would help him a lot during his first steps in Wikipedia), but I think that there should be some emphasis on these issues. By the way, this is an excellent opportunity to praise you for your very interesting and enlightening guide concerning the ArbCom Elections. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spudicus

Thanks for the encouragement. :-) I still can't believe I actually trusted a sockpuppet, though. Even so, I guess I've found a firm coaching process with my previous experiences with Spudicus. BTW, I've read that per this, your a video game developer. What current video games are you working on now? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 23:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Blatant vandalism"

• How do you determine whether it is "blatant"? I think this case is quite blatant. If you are right and it is not, then what -- engage in edit war? I know the user quite well for relishing in it.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Blatant vandalism is really obvious stuff, such as blanking pages, inserting profanity, replacing an article with a picture of someone's genitals, etc. It looks like what you were reporting was more in the nature of a content dispute. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. If it sets your mind at ease, I'm trying to take a look at the situation right now, but it's a bit tricky going through the archives since the page has been moved to so many different titles. I'm trying to straighten that out right now, so the archive links work. --Elonka 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (followup) Okay, I took a look. On WP:AIV, you listed the following three diffs.[17][18][19] None of those, on their own, would be called vandalism, especially as Frjohnwhiteford (talk · contribs) is continuing to engage in good faith discussions on the talkpage. If you feel that any of the information that he removed should really go back into the article, I recommend that you follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Start a thread on the talkpage, and/or try a polite note on his own talkpage. It may be possible to find a compromise, such as including the information in a different part of the article. --Elonka 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the links, in response to your request here. In the mean time, Muscovite99 has simply reinserted his tendentious and disruptive edits without following your advide that he take it to the talk page. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that all parties at Patriarch Alexy II of Russia try to take things slowly, especially as emotions are running high right now because of the Patriarch's recent death. Even if there's an odd edit here and there, we'll get the article sorted out in the long run. --Elonka 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My request would be that the article be reverted to where it was prior to Muscovite99's latest round of edits, and that any further edits that attempt insert or alter the material relative to the accusations involving KGB involvement be hashed out on the talk page first. As things stand, there are two serious POV insertions that have altered the balance of the article. The most blatant being the claim that the MP has only denied that he was a KGB agent once, when there is a footnote providing three separate quotes in which this was denied. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

True to form, Frjohnwhiteford seeks to impose on every one else his opinionated views. BBC is reputed to be the most balanced news media. You should stop your destructive censorial practices.Muscovite99 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I will reply at the article talkpage, let's keep discussions there. --Elonka 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi.. some times I follow this rule Wikipedia:Be bold --Bayrak (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Can you block someone from editing on talk pages too (if you are an admin)? the reason is [| this --Irmela 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The bottom section. --Irmela 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

al-Khwarizmi

I don't know anything about him, unfortunately, aside from the basic trivia. As far as I know, he was Persian. I try not to get involved in disputes between Arabs and Persians, it's depressingly futile. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there any relevant ArbCom cases for this topic area? --Elonka 06:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I see a discussion involving 2 people, I see no community consensus. The consensus version is the one prior to Bayrak's nationalistic edits. The Abbasid issue wasn't even discussed in the section you're referring to, he made those changes unilaterally. --Sina111 (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with the "Persian origin" wording, he was a Persian by nationality too (He was born under the native Iranic dynasty of Afrighids: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f7/v1f7a080.html ) Also, I don't think 2 editors' agreement with one and another constitutes a consensus that overides long-standing broad consensus on an issue . --Sina111 (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That source is not about the individual. Do you have a specific source which claims that he was Persian? --Elonka 07:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says "The name given by the Khwarazmian scholar Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī to the dynasty of rulers in his country, with the ancient title of Ḵᵛārazmšāh. According to him, the Afrighids ruled from 305 A.D. (year 616 of the Seleucid era), through the Arab conquests under Qotayba b. Moslem in 93/712, and up to their overthrow in 385/995 by the rising rival family of Maʾmunids (see Āl-e Maʾmūn)." So this was the kingdom that Khwarizmi was born in. That said, you're welcome to revert me if you feel so strongly about this issue. However, this is my area of expertise, and I do not feel that "Persian heritage" is the appropriate wording here. --Sina111 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm neutral on what should go into the article, and am just helping out as an uninvolved admin, so it wouldn't be proper for me to revert you. I do strongly encourage you though to try and keep the article in accordance with both Wikipedia policies, and the current consensus discussions at the article talkpage. As for area of expertise, I don't mean any disrespect, but on Wikipedia, it's not about what you feel you know, but about what the sources say. So far all of the sources provided have used terminology such as "Persian heritage", and not "Persian". Therefore, the Wikipedia article should follow what the sources say, unless other sources can be provided which say something different. --Elonka 07:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference "Persian" or "Persian stock"? Persian stock means Persian!--Sina111 (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's called original research. If the sources are careful to distinguish between "Persian stock" and "Persian", then we should too. See WP:SYNTH. --Elonka 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonoka, but the text states: "Al-Khwarizmi himself was of Persian stock, his ancestors coming from Khwarezm, in distant Transoxania. The Banu Musa, al-Mahani, and a host of others in the intellectual circle of ninth century Baghdad, were also Persians." Note it uses Persian stock in one sentence and Persian in another and uses the term "were also Persians". The equivalent is "were also Persians"...And if you need another source, "The Persian al-Khwarizmi published the first al-Jabr mathematics book" (Richard E. Gross ,Heritage of American Education, Published by Allyn and Bacon, 1962. pg 156). Persian stock and Persian mean the same thing. --Sina111 (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the person you need to convince, I'm just the admin interpreting the consensus on the talkpage. If you have new sources to present, please bring them up there. If other editors agree with your conclusions, then you'll have a new consensus. If not, and you still feel that you have a case, then try filing an article RfC and get more opinions into the mix. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In the meantime though, the consensus was "Persian heritage", so it would be wise to return the article to that wording until a new consensus can be established. --Elonka 07:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also not sure what "of Persian stock" is supposed to infer. If it doesn't mean "Persian", what does it mean? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just the same thing that I (and pretty much everyone except Elonka) thought. Of Persian stock, Persian family, Persian heritage... this means Persian, folks. No SYNTH there, nothing new about it, just using our knowledge of the English language to understand sources at the most basic level. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the argument here. I personally have no preference if the article says "Persian" or "of Persian heritage". However, I do care if the article is stable or not. From my point of view, there was a dispute about whether the article should say that al-Khwarizmi was "Persian" or not. This was argued on the talkpage for months. Then it was decided to use a compromise which emulated what the sources say, to describe him as "of Persian heritage". The compromise was acceptable, the arguments at the talkpage stopped, and the article became stable again, at least for several days. To me, that's "consensus". So when someone else comes along and re-starts the argument, saying that "Persian" is more accurate than "Persian heritage", and reverts the article saying that there's no consensus, that's when I have to speak up as an admin, and say that the article should stay at the consensus version, until a new consensus is built at the talkpage. This is not because I have any preference either way on the wording of the article. I'm not "pro-Persian" or "anti-Persian", I'm "pro-stability". --Elonka 15:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way has your quaint interpretation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which no other editor has found sensible, stabilized anything? Frustrating progress (unintentionally) on the most unconvincing grounds is not stability; it actually risks frustrating constructive editors. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:SYNTH

It is quite surprising that an administrator believes there is some sort of policy-violating original research/synthesis behind describing someone as "Persian" who has been ascribed Persian stock, Persian heritage, of a Persian family, etc. by reliable sources. I do not understand how this is not a matter simply of knowing the English language. The conclusion that he was an ethnic Persian could be reached using only one of the sources. What are we synthesizing? What are these multiple sources and claims? What is novel about the conclusion? Nobody understands the distinction you draw.

Say a source said, "Al-Khwarizmi was a scholar at the House of Wisdom. He was a Persian." We might be tempted to conclude that "Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian," but is there not something slightly original here? Isn't the editor assuming that the author intends the "he" in the second sentence to refer to Al-Khwarizmi? Without a reliable source specifying that this is in fact what the author meant, it can be said that the Wikipedia editor has taken a step - however small - into the realm of original research by applying his own beliefs about how to understand the English language to the author's work to arrive at a conclusion. After all, the source was "careful" to avoid the direct statement "Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian," so we should be too.

But what if we found a reliable source saying that the "he" refers to al-Khwarizmi? Would we then be safe to say "Al-Khwarizmi was Persian?" Nope! How can we synthesize the claim of the latter source with the statement of the former? Aren't we arriving at a conclusion that is not directly stated in either source? Oh no!

I really really hope that this would seem absurd and absolutely counterproductive to you, but it is little different from your use. Somehow your use of WP:SYNTH suggests that any departure from the original wording of the sources could be considered a violation of original research since the editor uses his own "original" understanding of the English language to arrive at basic conclusions and construct unique (yet allegedly synonymous) statements for use in the article. Must the encyclopedia become a string of quotes and/or plagiarism? Given the stance you have taken so far, where do you draw the line? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My talkpage is really not the place to be discussing the article content. If you have an opinion about the matter, I encourage you to bring it up at Talk:Khwārizmī to help build a clear consensus. --Elonka 15:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you interpret a hypothetical situation using imaginary sources and sentences as "discussing the article content." I guess you missed the point. The design was to examine whether or not the basic level of original research required in writing an encyclopedia that is not a string of quotes violates Wikipedia policy. With you being an administrator, supposedly well-versed in the nature of the rules here, I'm confused by what appears to be a rather incorrect interpretation of these policies that, if applied to other sentences, could effectively rule most basic acts of encyclopedia-writing to be "original research." Hence I open this discussion to examine this question of language and give you a chance to clarify your positions on this issue. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oak-Land Jr. High School

Yeargh. I read the first three sentences, which seemed reasonable, and restored. I should have noticed it continued in a significantly different direction. Thanks for the heads-up. Mark Heiden (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is a mess. And the poor anon that kept trying to remove the vandalism, actually got blocked! (sigh) Looks like the block has been reversed, but the article is still all tangled. I looked back a month to try and find a "clean" version to revert to, and couldn't find one, since there were some good changes inserted in between the vandalistic parts and the source removals. It's going to take some time to sort it out. --Elonka 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You can come out and say it, Elonka...I was the one who blocked him. But someone did point out my mistake and I undid it! I'm going to have a look at the article again and see if I can't clean it up. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like good penance.  ;) Thanks Ioeth! --Elonka 19:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

I think you are jumping the gun abit, and there are a few other people at fault here. It was a case of mistaken identity and the IP was rightfully unblocked. I was not edit warring. I was (or thought I was) reverting vandalism, leaving a talk page warning each time, and made an AIV report after the final warning which was handled with accordingly. I was following correct procedures and your talk page template was highly offensive and an assumption of bad faith.

Also, please revert your talk page message, you are abusing your administrator tools by editing it in the manner you did. Follow the instructions on the talk page next time. Thanks. --Charitwo ^(talk) 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Elonka was 100% right. Did you even read what you restored? Please be more careful in the future that what you are reverting is actually vandalism. --John (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, John. Please see my reply to Tanthalas39, thanks. --Charitwo ^(talk) 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Charitwo, you were repeatedly reverting at Oak-Land Jr. High School, putting obvious nonsense back into the page.[20][21][22][23] A 3RR warning was appropriate, as if you would have reverted again after the warning, your account access would have been blocked. I am also concerned that you made an AIV report[24] on an anon, 205.178.226.113 (talk · contribs) even though the anon was trying to remove vandalism. As for assuming good faith, when I saw the redirect at the top of your talkpage to uncyclopedia,[25] that put a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether you were operating in good faith or not. Looking deeper into your contribs right now though, Charitwo (talk · contribs), I do see that you do a lot of vandal-fighting, so thank you for that. It looks like in this one case, you were simply a bit quick on the draw. In the future, please also keep in mind that anyone, even an anon, is allowed to remove unsourced information, per WP:V. When someone removes a (small) amount of information, it is generally not a good idea to add it back, unless including a source which verifies that information. Anyway, how about we write this one off as a misunderstanding, and simply move on? If you would like to remove the warning from your talkpage, please feel free to do so. --Elonka 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply to Tanthalas39. --Charitwo ^(talk) 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Al-Khwārizmī

You are right. Sorry. --Raayen (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Please see Eligibility: Mervyn Emrys at WT:ACE2008. Thanks again. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-made art?

I wanted to draw calligraphy for the names of the Ismaili Imams, for their infoboxes on Wikipedia, since I don't know of any calligraphy or pictures we could use for them (or that traditionally exist, since knowledge of these Imams for much of the Ismaili community is recent). Is that allowable? I've already done (computer generated) versions for Ismail ibn Jafar and Muhammad ibn Ismail. --Enzuru 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me.  :) You're definitely welcome to create anything you want, though it would be a matter of consensus on each page as to whether the images would be used. I'd say go ahead, and upload the images to Commons, so they're usable on all the different language projects. --Elonka 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oki, thanks. It's just that recently we had a really nice (File:Ambigram - Muhammad and Ali.jpg) image on an article and someone wanted to take it down saying Wikipedia is not for showcasing Wikipedian art. BTW thanks for the edit summary suggestion, it's been great! --Enzuru 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on User talk:Zlerman

Please see the personal attack by anon on my talk page. Should I simply delete and ignore, or will you take action? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice Idea

Nice idea; but at the moment I'm working through a backlog of annotations...As my computer and browser handle it very well I'm happy with it as it is until I've caught up...when I've gone through all my notes I'll get back to you, if I may...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the information would still be in archive so you wouldn't lose it, but sure, it's your call. Just let me know!  :) --Elonka 18:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest Ian

Can we just have a civilized discussion about my block here without using the RFI policy and blocking me?IanBeOS (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Born of Osiris

Why did you delete this topic, i had read only a bit of the article when i had to get off the computer. when i get back on you deleted it. with no obvious reason for doing so. stop vandalizing your privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeineia (talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The article Born of Osiris was deleted because it did not meet our standards for inclusion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born of Osiris. If at some point the band becomes more notable, the article can be re-attempted. The things most needed, are third-party published sources, such as books or newspaper/magazine articles which talk about the band. If/when such sources become available, please let us know. --Elonka 03:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Brett Leonhardt

Thanks for saving the article! I caught it at a really bad time when it said "web site producer." It's looking much better now. Cheers. --digitalmischief (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank Blackrx (talk · contribs), not me, they're the one that added sources.  :) --Elonka 04:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I'll keep that in mind, I am feeling a bit frustrated here though. I don't feel like Bayrak is listening at all, I explained to him in details on the talk page about how his map is from a different period, and maps can not be used as a source anyways. Without bothering to read or respond to my detailed comment, he blindly reverts me, removing the secondary source I had provided, replacing it with his map again. --Sina111 (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. I am in agreement that his edits have not been particularly helpful. I just posted at his talkpage, and have asked him to avoid editing the article for a week (though he can still participate at the talk). Hopefully this will allow the article some time to stabilize. --Elonka 05:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your block is affecting Wikipedia editors who are signed in

Your block of an IP that User:Ashley kennedy3 used to edit war on the Banias article is creating problems in editing Wikipedia for me. Despite being logged in I get a message that I'm disabled from editing. I've had to sign in on the secure server in order to post this but am loathe to continue to use the secure server as I have to confirm each new page I view. Please unblock the IP immediately as I have never edited that article, and am being affected by a block for something that has nothing to do with me. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, You design games, thats cool!

Hope I am not disturbing you. But this is my idea of a game. You should do a online gaming website where people can buy all sorts of cars and drive in London. They drive in traffic and stuff. To make money they have races with other cars. This is like Runescape but it specializes in driving skills. I hope you like it. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. this is not a vandal, just giving my thoughts.

Bayrak

thanks for message i am trying to know more and more about wikipedia sorry if i done mistakes here or there --Bayrak (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i speak Najdi Arabic and Kuwaiti Arabic many thanks for advices --Bayrak (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe me if I said I don’t have account in Ar-wikipedia :) Bayrak (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

none of my business, but somebody, that my sixth sense identifies him/her with bayrak, is systematically trying to remove any reference to Persians from ar.wikipedia pages of Persian scientists like Avvesina, Farabi, Biruni.. and even has removed the Persian categories at the end of their pages. --Xashaiar (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting page edits

Elonka, I'd like to edit my voting statements to greatly shorten them. Can I just delete my own material, or do I have to use strikeover? I'd rather delete than leave stuff there. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, you can edit your comments any way you see fit. Delete, strike, modify, or remove entirely, it's your call. It seems that the general etiquette is to use strikeout, but I don't think anyone will complain if you just delete/modify. If you do make a substantial change, you may wish to add a note to the comment like, "modified from original comment, ~~~~" to clarify that it's different, and to put an updated datestamp on it. Basically, do whatever makes sense, and causes the least disruption to the page. --Elonka 17:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might not be aware

I thought you might be interested in the discussions going on. [26] & [27] Since you are being discussed somewhat I thought you should be informed so you can comment if you feel obliged to do so. On Giano II you'll have to look at history since he blanked his page and left a note the he was gone. I hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I've been getting caught up on the AN thread, ANI thread, and the various user talk pages. See also the above #Autoblock school thread. Quite a lot of chatter while I was asleep! --Elonka 18:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my that is a lot to wake up to, sorry. Have a cookie, maybe the rest of your day will be better. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Crohnie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

...oh cookie, cookie, cookie starts with C.... GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

If it helps, I didn't want to yell at you, just alert you to the problem. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I do understand that it must have been a frustrating situation! --Elonka 18:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yannis

Well, Yannis is back, and this time he brought friends. See Law:Talk under "Further Reading." In effect, a substantial amount of content I provided was swiped and turned into at least six edits by Wikidea. Have a nice day... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I changed my page a bit, out of deference to you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have to be honest, it still needs more. Let me soapbox a bit. I'm saying this not just because the page is running afoul of WP:ATP, but also because your current page is not helping you achieve the goals that I think you wish to achieve. If you wish to have a voice in Wikipedia discussions (and I would genuinely like for you to do so, because of your academic experience), you must cultivate a certain sensitivity to the culture here. Granted, the culture is severely warped at times. I've heard it described as a dysfunctional high school, an asylum where the inmates have taken over, or a haven for people with Asperger syndrome. And there are indeed times and specific areas of Wikipedia where I would agree with all of those assessments. However, Wikipedia is a big project, and it's not all like that. There are pockets of sanity.  :) There are (some) emotionally mature editors, there are (some) effective dispute resolution processes, there is (some) hope for the islands of sanity to grow and expand into other areas of Wikipedia. You could be helpful towards that goal. But to be most helpful, you have to be sensitive to the existing cultural expectations, to make it more likely for people to listen to you. I'm not going to sugarcoat it: Right now your userpage is like wearing a nametag that says, "Hi, I'm a disgruntled whiner with one foot out the door". If that's how you want to be perceived, well, that's your choice. But if you want to have a stronger voice in policy discussions, you want a userpage that says, "Hi, I'm an academic who's emotionally stable, has a positive attitude, likes to work on articles, and is here to help." In order to get your page more to the latter definition, you want to remove that "semi-retired" template, remove anything that makes it look like you nurse grudges, and remove anything else which makes it look like you're "leaving" instead of "staying". Make the page positive, make the page welcoming, make the page a statement which shows why other editors should respect you, why they should want to listen to you, and most importantly, why they might want to collaborate with you. Make the page show that you understand the primary goal of the project, and that your goals are aligned with those of the encyclopedia. That's what will earn you more respect within the culture. And if you want even more clout, there's a currency here that everyone values, and that's FAs. Read Wikipedia:Featured article. Those with the highest status in this culture, even beyond ArbCom, are those who write Featured articles. That's what we're here for, the articles. So if you can get an article – any article! – to FA, that's a badge of honor in this culture. But getting articles to FA is hard (which is one of the reasons the FA stars are so valued). In the meantime, if you want to get along better in this culture, and show yourself as one of the "sane" editors here, make a userpage which shows it. Simply make a userpage which shows that you understand that the articles are more important than the politics, and it will serve you well.  :) --Elonka 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, would you mind contemplating the implications of this passage and perhaps rephrasing? As written, it appears to equate AS with lack of sanity; I hope that isn't the intended meaning. I've heard it described as a dysfunctional high school, an asylum where the inmates have taken over, or a haven for people with Asperger syndrome. And there are indeed times and specific areas of Wikipedia where I would agree with all of those assessments. However, Wikipedia is a big project, and it's not all like that. There are pockets of sanity.  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy.  :) To be clear, I don't think AS sufferers are necessarily certifiably insane. I know people with AS, and some of them cope with it reasonably well and are able to function within society. However, it can require some fortitude on the part of the friends in their social circle, as the AS sufferers (that I know) do tend to have appalling social skills. They can be brilliant, literate, hardworking people, but their lack of empathy, and tendency to speak in an aggressive fashion, can (sometimes) make them extremely difficult to get along with. As I have observed the userboxes of other editors around Wikipedia, I have found it interesting that some excellent writers on Wikipedia do self-identify as having AS – there seems to be something about the aspect of collecting and organizing information in this kind of atmosphere that is appealing to those with Asperger's. This is great in terms of building the encyclopedia, but not so great in terms of getting along with other editors. I think it also ties into the current controversy about whether or not WP:CIVIL should be enforced or not. There are some who feel that social skills are not required here – that it's only about the articles. There are others (such as myself) who feel that social skills are required, because one aggressive editor, even if a good writer, may be antagonizing other good writers away from the project. I know this from firsthand experience, as there are a few articles that I have simply stopped working on, because I couldn't stand dealing with the other writers on the talkpage. It's kind of sad, because some of those articles could be at featured status today, if there were simply a more collegial editing environment on those talkpages, and in the FAC process. Maybe I'll go back and work on those articles someday... For now though, everytime I think about it, I just get irritated at the thought of the personal attacks and abuse that I would have to endure in order to get the article to FA, and so I decide to just go and work on something else instead! --Elonka 18:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The detour is interesting, but I was asking if you want to be equating neurological differences with insanity. I'd additionally point out that some people who might not have an autism spectrum disorder may still suffer deficits in social skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is trying to read too much into the definition of the word "sanity". Someone can see a bizarre edit war going on and say, "You guys are insane", and it doesn't necessarily mean that they're making a psychiatric diagnosis. Other than that, I agree with you that someone can have appalling social skills, regardless of whether or not they have AS. --Elonka 18:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position on neurological differences and sanity, where you don't seem to see the importance in making a clear distinction. I am unaware of any overlapping definitions of insanity and Asperger's. Lest it ever come up in another context, let me remind you of the text at WP:NPA: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor." Unfortunately, we have less leeway to deal with other editors who may be lacking in social skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy now? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Much better, yes.  :) Perhaps also mention which topic areas most interest you? A few userboxes might also be good. Not too many! Overdoing userboxes is considered a sign of immaturity in this culture. But a half-dozen or so, indicating your languages and a couple of your interests would be excellent. If you're not sure how to use them, scan WP:USERBOX#Gallery and tell me which ones more interest you, and I'll help. Or, look at the userpages of other editors that you respect, and copy their userboxes. Whatever's easier for you. :) --Elonka 17:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, can you get Mathsci, Yannis, Wikidea, Slrubenstein, neuro, and Hans Adler to be so civil? Hmmmnnn? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Re Mathsci: I think that at this point, you and he are kind of batting each other about the ears pretty much equally. I recommend that the two of you get in contact off-wiki and try to work things out.
• Re Yannis/Wikidea: I assume you're referring to the conversation at Talk:Law? I agree that the tone of the discourse there had deteriorated,[28] and I'm taking a look at it.
• Re Slrubenstein: Not sure what you're talking about, is there something recent? If so, please provide diffs.
• Re Hans Adler: Again, not sure what you're talking about, please provide diffs.

As general advice, when you encounter incivility (and I agree that Wikidea's comment was unacceptable[29]), one of the most effective ways of dealing with it is to take it to that person's talkpage. Provide a diff of the unacceptable behavior, a link to the appropriate policy, express polite concerns about their behavior, and offer constructive suggestions on how they can improve. Taking it to the user's talkpage serves multiple purposes: It gets the personal back-and-forth off the article talkpages; it generates a record of the disruptive behavior on the user's own talkpage; it shows a record that you made a good faith effort to work things out amicably; and it makes it more likely that admins may be notified at an early stage. Admins may not be monitoring everything that a particular user does, but they do tend to monitor the talkpages of disruptive users. So if a (genuine) incivility warning appears on a watched user's talkpage, it's easier for admins to take action.

Ultimately, the best way for you to deal with things is to try to talk to other editors with respect, and see if it's possible to work things out. Asking admins for help is definitely an option, but admins are generally only going to take action in the most egregious cases. Sometimes it's hard to remember, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is a truly massive project. We have millions of editors, millions of articles, and thousands of new articles flowing in every single day. But there are only about 1500 admins, so we're spread pretty thin. So anything you can do to resolve your own battles, is usually the best course of action.  :) --Elonka 08:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys, Elonka and I are currently cooperating amicably in a delicate ArbCom case. On wikipedia you seem to be rocking the boat. Please could you stop? There is more going on on wikipedia than the small part you have seen and seem only partially to understand. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, your first sentence there was excellent, and the last two-word sentence was good too. The rest was unhelpful. Or let me put it this way: How would you feel if I said something like that to you? --Elonka 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You have written much worse offf-wiki and have been cautioned (not by me). Mathsci (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about? But if you're referring to something that somebody said off-wiki about what I did or didn't say, it's best to just drop it. Let's try to keep discussions on-wiki, strictly to what is said on-wiki. If you want to talk about some off-wiki matter, you have my email: elonka@aol.com --Elonka 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as this thread is concerned, Mervyn Emrys should not be making personal attacks on editors on wikipedia as he has done above. Is that understood? Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, if you look at User:Mervyn Emrys, you'll see that at least he's making some effort to try and de-escalate the dispute. Perhaps you could try to meet him halfway? --Elonka 22:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only read what he's written about me and others. However, I do not take it seriously and I see that he is gradually getting the feel of wikipedia. The sooner he gets used to this funny old world, the better. I'd quite like to talk about the ArbCom case by email, if that's OK with you. You can reply here. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, email is fine, or if you'd like a quicker response, try gtalk. --Elonka 22:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. You've forgotten how old I am. I'll stick with email. Mathsci (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the fact that my name was dropped here (in a way that really puzzles me for lack of recent interaction) as a pretext for commenting that I am observing the recent Mathsci/Elonka cooperation with fascination. Please continue to impress me in this way. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for the note on distribution of the references. Curiously, the only two I couldn't find, even in the article on US Law, were American Lawyers (1989) and Law and Lawyers in the United States (1996), both on the role of lawyers in an adversarial legal system. S'pose my question about anti-American sentiment was accurate? Don't expect you to answer that. I've cleaned them up and redistributed them to more appropriate homes as best I could. C'ést la vie. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done as much as I can to comply with your wishes on Talk:Law. If I bend over backwards any further, my head will be below ground--if it doesn't explode. Not that it will make much difference. I'm done. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you. I saw that you had been posting some very conciliatory messages there, so good job on that. If they don't work, well at least you'll have the diffs to show that you gave it a solid try. As for the RfC there, are you satisfied with the outcome, meaning having the books divvyed up on different articles? If so, you might wish to post that you are satisfied with the current situation, and that Consensus has been achieved. If everyone's happy, then the RfC can be closed. Or do you think that further changes would be a good idea? And if so, where? Also, I was very interested in what you put about your own history.[30] That would be perfect information to include on your userpage.  :) Especially the bit about grabbing the blade. I don't wish to diminish the intensity of that incident, but in a way, editing on Wikipedia is a similar exercise, taking the risk of exposing yourself to harm, and showing that you're not afraid. You may get knocked down, but the important thing is that you're going to get back up again and keep going.  :) What's that Japanese proverb? "Fall down seven times, stand up eight!" --Elonka 20:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm more burned out and resigned to the apparent outcome on Talk:Law than satisfied. I think it's hopeless, rather than consensus. I'm more tired of it than happy, and have better ways to spend my time. I'm withdrawing and will practice avoidance if possible. Probably should close it anyway. I will email you about the other stuff. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, is it too much to move a Barn Star from my talk page to my user page? It was a pleasant surprise, but don't want to overdo it there. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Userpages are the perfect places to put barnstars.  :) Etiquette varies on when to put them on your userpage. Some people consider it polite to copy them to the userpage immediately, others move them in during other more occasional userpage updates, and some editors just leave them on their talkpage and never do anything more with them, or only userfy the barnstars that they are most proud of. If/when you get to the point of having a lot of barnstars (and if you stick around, I'm confident that you will), then other more creative solutions can be used so as to keep things tiday. For examples of techniques used by a few of the highly decorated users around the project: TimVickers puts his barnstars into a "show/hide" section (a system that I use as well). Kirill Lokshin puts his in a condensed table format. User:Charles Matthews, as you may have seen, has moved them and other comments off to a Plaudits page. Rlevse has an "Awards" link in a toolbar at the top of his page, which links to a subpage, and so forth. There's no one best way to handle them, so you can feel free to be as creative as you like.  :) Do whatever feels comfortable. --Elonka 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to bother you when you're so busy. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize, feel free to ask anything you'd like.  :) --Elonka 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

اسمیم

Is it absolutely necessary that my username and/or signature be in the Roman script? —Preceding unsigned comment added by קײק פּלז (talk • contribs) 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge it is not an absolute policy requirement, no, just a policy recommendation. Mainly it's a courtesy for other editors, so that if they want to refer to you, find you, or even be able to pronounce your name in their head, they are able to do so. For example, if there were a discussion on a userpage, and another editor wanted to say, "I agree with <your name>", or "<your name>'s suggestion is a good one", it would be difficult for them to do so, and also difficult for other editors to follow the conversation.

If you don't want to change your username, that is your choice, but what you might wish to do is have a Latin-equivalent username (perhaps something phonetic?) which then redirects to your "real" userpage, and so other users can use that when referring to you, and conversations will make more sense to everyone. Otherwise if someone wants to leave you a message (or check to see if you replied), they have to first track down your signature somewhere else, and then copy/paste it into their browser. At least, that's how I'd do it, since I'm not even sure how I'd go about typing your username with my current keyboard. How do you pronounce your name, anyway? Since I'm not familiar with your alphabet, my brain struggles to make sense of the characters, and communicates to me something like "tzepup". Which I'm pretty confident is nowhere near your actual username!  ;) So, have mercy on us, please? --Elonka 17:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This presents a rather unique problem. You suggest I write out my username phonetically in the latin script, but my username and signature are actually 100% English when spoken aloud. It is rather that I have transliterated them into Hebrew characters for the benifit of my Yiddish-speaking brothers and sisters. (Vive la France) But you see, my user name is "קײק פּלז", and my signature contains an additional word "סרסלי" before it (keep in mind we read from right to left). Therefore, taking my full signature form:

• סרסלי: srsly (Internet slang: Seriously)
• קײק: kejk (Pronounced "kike", the "original Yiddish spelling" of the slur, unless you propose a non-Yiddish etymology, then it is merely how we would write it.
• פּלז: plz (Internet slang: please)

So you see it's rather clever, as I've taken the internet's penchant for vowel-omission and coupled it with the Hebrew language's natural state of vowel-omission. All of this adds up to a Jewish twist on the rather infamous exclamation "n***a please" (which I as an urban child of Yankeestan have heard many a time)

And so we get to the crux of my argument: You are trying to take my culture away from me.

סרסלי, קײק פּלז (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) No, you can't have the word "kike" in your username. Please go to WP:RENAME and pick something else. --Elonka 07:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your help needed in resolving the dispute on Hinduism and Buddhism article

Hello Elonka,

Would you kindly take a look at the following article and help to resolve the dispute in the Early history section? I have placed a NPOV tag there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism

The other editor is trying to suppress a published reference contrary to his/her opinion and I am afraid an Edit War is going to break out unless a moderator intervenes.

The dispute is regarding the dating of Bhavad Gita into pre-Buddhist or post-Buddhist era.

I would appreciate your help in resolving this. Regards.

PS- If you are busy , kindly refer this dispute to another moderator.

--Satyashodak (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock

Be careful about autoblocking users with the same IP: Evidently me and (checking the information that was given by Autoblock) Ashley kennedy3 both use BT (Probably the largest internet provider in Britain, and which dynamically allocates). It's a little annoying to get hit with an autoblock, particularly when the Autoblock information says it was just a 3RR, which probably didn't need the extra - what is it, anti-sockpuppet? - defenses. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I got hit as well. Must have hit over 50% of the UK population of Wikipedians! --Snowded TALK 09:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just lost stacks of work because of you! Please chck before blocking London in future, especially as you have been warned before. Giano (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also NOT best pleased. (Thank you to whoever has now restored me). Elonka, please be more careful with your blocking! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 12:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Your autoblock of the BT IP has also blocked all of us in the London area currently being routed through the same IP! I have had to come through the secure server to get here. Having created 200+ articles I am not a vandal! Please be a little more careful when using the tools. Thanks Jack1956 (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I want to know why I've been autoblocked as I am only a new user of Wikipedia and It all looks very sinister when someone else is using my IP address. This has wasted a lot of my time and caused me a lot of worry. Zawia Zawia (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this has anything to do with the above but I think the autoblock may have extended outside London. I live in Birmingham and found myself autoblocked for a short while. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And all the way to Glasgow. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to ask everyone who's attacking Elonka right now, how did she know that her autoblock would affect this many people? You are all making it appear like she checkusered the IP on Ashley kennedy3, saw the IP address then said, "eh, screw it, I'll block 'em all!" In reality, Elokna did what almost any other admin would do in this situation. We almost always autoblock with 3RR violations, especially when the user has been blocked in the past for sockpuppetry. Elonka had no clue that this block would affect as many people as it did, so I really suggest people back off with the cries of abuse. either way (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

She blocked twice (I know as a victim). Once, well it can happen but most admins are very cautious before imposing a range ban. After the first block the fact the BT allocation dynamic IPs was made know so the second block is a clear mistake and a failure to check before acting. --Snowded TALK 14:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I only see one block by Elonka in this block log. There was no "range ban," just an autoblock. either way (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is all the above twaddle? Pray tell, how could Elonka have known that the user she was blocking was in the UK, let alone that their ISP was BT? And even then, we're assuming that she could psychically divine that BT would change it's IP allocation/proxy use and that she would be able to anticipate which accounts should therefore be blocked with the default autoblock disabled. CIreland (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Being hit by an autoblock once is something no one should complain about. Having that reversed then getting blocked again at least justifies a request for an explanation. --Snowded TALK 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Normal admins cannot see which IPs correspond to which accounts. There is no way for us to tell if two have the same IP. Even if we had the checkuser tool which would allow us to do so, it would not be usual to check. If you wish to complain, I suggest you would be better to do so where the problem originated: BT. CIreland (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the block originated here, twice as far as I was concerned. I'm simply asking for an explanation as to how this can happen. Its the first time I have seen in in two years and I have seen a lot of IP's banned. --Snowded TALK 16:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've told you what we know. The autoblock was lifted by Luna around 8:30UTC. How another autoblock came to be four hours later, we don't know. It was probably something with the system, but it definitely wasn't Elonka implementing another block (she hasn't edited since 7:12UTC today, over five hours before the second autoblock occurred). So, clearly, this isn't her fault. either way (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok well that is clear I can only report things as they seem to me and a lot of people were hit with this one. The second autoblock is curious as the author was marked as Elonka, hence my confusion. Worth looking into by those who know more than I do (or plan to do). On that note happy to leave it. --Snowded TALK 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock school

See also: Wikipedia:Autoblock

Whee! I do one routine 3RR block, and all of UK comes to my door.  :) Okay, let's have some Autoblock school. To be clear, I did not block all of you, I blocked one user, Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs), who had violated 3RR on the Banias article. Ashley has a long block log, and had previously been blocked for abusing multiple accounts,[31] so it is routine to have the block extend to the IP, not just to the user. I cannot see the IP, since I do not have Checkuser access -- I just check a little box that says, "Autoblock any IP addresses used". This means that not only is Ashley blocked, but if Ashley then attempts to login via different IPs while blocked, those IPs are blocked as well, and the autoblock continues to other accounts using those IPs, as it appears to have hit all of you. To anyone trying to use these other IPs, they get a message saying that the original admin (me) blocked them, but it doesn't mean that I did a deliberate block of these other accounts, it just means that I was the admin that placed the original block on one user. For more information, and to see why the autoblock seemed to re-appear even after it was "fixed", please see: Wikipedia:Autoblock. I am sorry that all of you were temporarily blocked, but I hope this helps explain what happened? If anyone is still having problems, please definitely let us know. --Elonka 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why the second autoblock was on the same IP, though. Let's say User A is on IP address 17 (for simplification) and is blocked with an autoblock enabled. User B is on 17 too, logs on, is autoblocked, admin comes along and lifts the autoblock so B is able to edit now. Four hours later, IP address 17 is autoblocked again from the same block on User A five hours ago. What would cause this to happen? Is it that User A tried to log in again on IP address 17 so that triggered it all over again? either way (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's possible, yes. Here's another possible scenario:

• Ashley's IP (17) is blocked when Ashley is blocked.
• Ashley then tries to login via 18 and 19, both of which are resultingly autoblocked.
• The autoblock on 18 is later cleared, but 19 is left autoblocked because someone didn't know about it.
• UserJohn Doe tries to login from autoblocked 19, and so John's account is autoblocked.
• Confused, John tries to login from a different IP, 18, and so 18 is autoblocked again.
• And 'round the cycle goes.

Autoblocks can really spiral when people are trying to login from multiple IPs. See Wikipedia:Autoblock#How it works (and feel free to let me know if the page is further confusing, so we can try to make it more clear). Hope that helps, --Elonka 17:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In otherwords, Ashley's block follows her to every IP she tries to use (in her attempts to get around her previous IP block). GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

or

A person who is caught by the autoblock gets very angry and comments on their talkpage... In the meanwhile the autoblock lifts but, in the opinion of an admin, the comments deserve a block but when enacting the sanction the sysop also causes the autoblock to reset... which effects those accounts previously caught. In this instance this did happen, but the second autoblock was quickly noted and reversed.
FWIW, the fact that all of an ISP's connections to Wikipedia is via one ip is further outfall from the Virgin Killer/Internet Watch Foundation situation of a few days ago - seems some isp's are slower to reduce restrictions than they are to enforce them... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when I saw that this was mostly affecting UK addresses, I too was wondering if it was related to the IWF problem from a few days ago. It would be nice on the "block username" screen to see a message like, "Warning: This account sometimes logs in from an IP in the UK, do not autoblock it". Though I understand that there are privacy issues there, it would help avoid problems such as we've seen today. --Elonka 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other interesting timestamps:

• My original block of Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) was at 19:52, 12 December
• Snowded (talk · contribs) - was editing normally at 07:49 13 December, then posted an unblock request at 08:49, unblocked by 09:05, but then requested unblock again at 12:26
• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) - editing normally at 00:26 13 December, then posted an unblock request at 08:37.[32]
• Mjroots (talk · contribs) editing normally at 08:42, then posted a concern via secure server at 08:53
• Giano II (talk · contribs) - editing normally through 12:06 13 December, then posted unblock request at 12:10
• Jack1956 (talk · contribs) - editing normally at 11:55, then requested unblock at 12:32
• Timothy Titus (talk · contribs) - editing normally at 11:28, requested unblock at 12:36. Unblocked by 12:40, then reblocked by 12:53
• Titch Tucker (talk · contribs) - editing normally at 12:01, then requested unblock at 12:38

In summary, based only on the comments of those who spoke up (others may have been affected but didn't say anything), the original block of Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) at 19:52 UTC doesn't seem to have affected anyone for several hours. Then suddenly around 08:35, other users did start to be affected. Whether this was because BT switched something, or Ashley tried to login on a different IP, or something else, I'm not sure. I'm glad it all appears to be fixed now though. --Elonka 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

BT has always been a blocking/checkusering nightmare. I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen more frequently. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, I was looking into the claim that a civility block of Giano II (talk · contribs) triggered a new set of autoblocks, and I think that's a minor factor. Looking at the above data, the autoblocks appear to have occurred in two main waves, one major one around 08:30, another small one at 8:50, and another major one that hit between 12:07 and 12:10. But Giano's block wasn't until 12:42. So it may have been that autoblock that caught Timothy Titus (talk · contribs), but everyone else's unblock requests came in before 12:42. --Elonka 22:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe BT assigns new IP addresses every time someone signs on - what I suspect happened was that, at the start, four or five people got hit by autoblock, and then, for whatever reason, one or two tried logging back on, spreading it to more IPs and more users, and the problem spread out in a wave. I may be wrong. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Life goes on

Don't worry about it Elonka. Don't let any angry frustrated reactions, get ya down. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of questions and some frustration GD but no real anger that I can see. --Snowded TALK 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: On thinking about situations such as these, maybe a userblock and semi prot of page maybe an option (?) I use semiprots alot these days. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, semi-protection where? I'm not understanding how that's related to the 3RR block. --Elonka 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

On Banias, the page in question. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, semi-protection will keep anonymous and new editors off the page, but not the established ones. Anon vandalism wasn't the problem at Banias, it was an edit war between (mostly) established editors.[33] BTW, congrats on the ArbCom win, though it's also a loss to much of Wikipedia that we're losing some of your article-writing skills! I wish you luck (and sympathies!) at juggling the new responsibilities. :) --Elonka 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But if the established editor is blocked for 3RR, then semi-protecting will block them from contnuing to revert by IP address alone....and don't worry, I will still be writing articles; one of my platforms was that arbs should be out there 'mucking in' with the community at large...;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The block was because of 3RR violations while Ashley kennedy3 was logged in, not a concern that Ashley would continue to revert as an IP. --Elonka 04:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I figured you blocked the ip so he couldn't then keep going while logged out, yeah? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not block the IP, I blocked Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs). Semi-protection of the Banias article would not have helped in this case, since there was no IP disruption on that article, and (to my knowledge) there was no history of Ashley using IPs to edit while blocked. So why semi-protect an article that doesn't need it? --Elonka 05:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant with autoblock disabled rather than enabled and then semi prot. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looking through your admin logs, I realize you haven't done any edit-warring blocks, so let me try to explain: There are several hundred blocks that take place every day on Wikipedia.[34] If we were to accompany every single edit-warring block, with semi-protection on the related article, this would put too much of a hardship on too many other editors, and too many restrictions on too many articles. Per WP:SEMI, semi-protection is to be used for existing disruption, as you correctly used it at Walrus and Potato (I might not have chosen to use indefinite semi there, but that's a separate discussion). Getting back to Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) though, this user works on many articles in the Israel/Palestine topic area. Semi-protecting all of them just to prevent editing by one blocked editor who might be trying to get around a block, would not have been an effective solution. The autoblock collateral damage was unfortunate, but not unusual. Scan this list, and you'll see that autoblocks occur every few minutes.[35] The particular autoblock in Ashley's case was worse than most, because it hit IPs that were more trafficked than usual, probably because of the IWF/VK problem a few days ago (let me know if you'd like more info on that). But in the vast majority of cases, autoblocks occur and are cleared routinely, many times per day, just as blocks for edit-warring also occur many times per day. If you'd like to get more experience with 3RR, scan WP:AN3, and also add this page to your watchlist: User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations. It's still a bit buggy, but is an excellent early-warning system for places where edit-wars are popping up. --Elonka 05:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I have stuck to dealing with what I encounter on the 400+ pages on my watchlist, many of which are very large articles or good/featured. I have become generous with semi'ing after finding surreptitious removal of material going unnoticed on big articles (a right pain) and generally low rates of good edits by IPs vs vandalism ones. Potato is quite a sizeable article, hence not too easy to keep track of, and many food articles aren't watched very closely. I wonder how the ratios of these change on different articles - for some reason vandals love to go to town on lion and blue whale (go figure); I am not familiar with political articles and whether IPs are adding much useful content proportionally to IP vandalism. The auto 3RR is interesting. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.  :) You've done an enormous amount of excellent work on the project, but it's been focused primarily in the Taxonomy articles, as well as that small section of Wikipedia related to high quality articles. Last I checked, the good and featured articles comprised about 0.3% of the project. Now that you've been elected to ArbCom, you'll get more of a chance to see what's outside the walls of the Forbidden City. ;) Myself, I currently have about 4,500 articles on my watchlist, even though I'm constantly trying to prune it down. Most of my efforts are on smaller articles, new articles, and articles that are in the painful throes of ethnic/nationalist/religious or science/pseudoscience disputes. As for why articles such as Potato, Polar bear, Lion, Blue whale and such are frequent targets of vandalism, I think it's a simple answer, which is that those articles are the most likely to be read by small children. In schools these days, many children have their own laptops, and as they're sitting bored in class, Wikipedia is likely to be on their computer screen, and is therefore a tempting target for the students to "doodle". Wikipedia editors that are on vandal patrol quickly learn to identify which IPs are coming from schools, and we tag their talkpages with {{SharedIPEDU}} templates, block them in rapidly escalating cycles (up to as long a year), and sometimes contact the schools themselves when the vandalism gets out of hand. I just wrote to a school's abuse department the other day, and you can see the results at Talk:Oak-Land Jr. High School#School vandalism cleanup. As for the more grown-up articles, yes, we actually do get a lot of excellent edits from anonymous editors. I usually try to encourage them to create an account, but some of them just like staying as an IP for some reason. BTW, if you'd like to learn more about the ethnic/national disputes, you may wish to read the report that we generated from the ArbCom-appointed Working Group on cultural and ethnic edit wars, where we made recommendations for how ArbCom can better deal with these chronic conflicts in the future. Another good page that resulted from the Working Group is at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. I keep meaning to write a page on "Advice on working in Arbitration Enforcement", but it keeps getting backburnered. If you'd like to read my "in-process" pages though, see User:Elonka/Notes and User:Elonka/DR draft. --Elonka 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)