User talk:Elonka/Archive 26

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

FYI Fat Cigar has admitted to being the

Yup, I'm following that case and a couple other sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry investigations. --Elonka 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking of meat puppetry, I wonder whether you could comment on this page [1]? There would seem to be a conflict of interest between the private interests of Elonka Dunin and Elonka the administrator. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, you have been cautioned before about harassment, and even blocked for it. That you are continuing to scour the web for any mention of my name, is a bad sign, and I would recommend that you try to find another hobby. To answer your question though, just in case anyone else is curious: The

IGDA is a non-profit organization which supports game developers. It's manned by volunteers, much as Wikipedia is. Just as I help out at Wikipedia, I also help out at the IGDA wiki. That particular page is sort of the IGDA version of a Wikipedia WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Games. It's a call for those IGDA volunteers who wish to help with Wikipedia, to be able to do so, to have points of contact where they can ask questions or make suggestions. The page is also an effort to head off some common problems (such as creating articles about non-notables). It's generally not a COI for someone who works in an industry, to write an article about someone in a different part of the industry, especially when the information is being written in a neutral manner and based on reliable sources. As for my own activities, I would know better than to use admin tools on any article which was related to me or my company. --Elonka

22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthsci's tentatively-voiced concern, which i do not share, that "there would seem to be a conflict of interest" at first sight, is well within reason, and asking you to comment is the appropriate action in that case. That you would meet this with an aggressively defensive response, throwing around the word "harassment" at this point (have you yourself ever been warned about this? i think you have), is not reasonable or helpful. Addressing your comment to "anyone else" is mere churlishness (and also surely a tacit acceptance that asking you to comment is reasonable?) 86.44.19.25 (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Elonka. The BLP of

IGDA, is up for deletion: that is how your page came up. I think it represents a real conflict of interest. I find it quite disturbing that you feel harrassed by this question. Please stop replying to wikipedians in this exaggerated, uncivil and offensive way. Now that you understand the context, I expect you to apologize and be more careful in future. Many thanks. Mathsci (talk

) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is a conflict of interest? I have nothing to do with that article. --Elonka 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be anybody in your firm. I presume you wrote the page in order to increase the visibility of your firm and to promote business. Wikipedia provides a free advertising forum and is one of the most viewed sites on the web. However, this is not exactly the purpose of a scholarly encyclopedia. Perhaps, as webmistress or whatever, you could simply make this somewhat dated page disappear and we could just let the matter drop? What do you think? Mathsci (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, go find something to do that isn't related to Elonka. This is a big wiki - stretch out a bit. If you could both just avoid each other for a while, the drama level would improve greatly. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney I was asked a question and I responded. I believe on main space edits currently I probably score far better than you, as far as scholarly content is concerned. In real life, as I intimated elsewhere, I am currently heavily involved in a project in conformal field theory, which explains my edits to

Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations. Your remarks are uncivil and do not reflect my editing history. Why on earth are you intervening here? Has Elonka lost the power of speech? Mathsci (talk

) 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to that particular statement, just the idea that you need to find something that doesn't involve Elonka for a bit. Attacking me and my edits isn't going to win you any points here. There are many, many things you could be doing that do not require interaction with Elonka for a bit (as you've pointed out) and I'm suggesting that both of you should disengage. Shell ^babelfish 22:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you being somewhat patronising? I am adding a lot to mathematics articles at the moment. Please stop being so uncivil! If your friend Elonka had not used the term "tag team" to describe the behaviour of myself and others, she would not be in this mess, entirely of her own making. A simple apology would settle the matter as far as I am concerned, even just a suggestion that she can occasionally be wrong. Multiple administrators have questioned her judgement in this matter. But you yourself are writing as if most of my edits on wikipedia are related to Elonka, which a check of my recent edits will show is not the case. I spend most time on mathematics articles. My only point is that Elonka might perhaps recognize her own limitations. That's all. That includes not following me to WPM with her 0.02€ worth. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I agree. Could you possibly also make the same request to Elonka about avoiding me for a while? In the discussion below, she admits watching my talk page to intervene in completely unrelated disputes that I may have with other editors. That's not a great way to reduce drama or conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka followed me to the talk page of wikproject mathematics. I am surprised she didn't have better things to do with her time. Do you have any idea how she ended up on the talk page of wikiproject mathematics, Shell? Perhaps she could find something else to do that isn't Mathsci related. Mathsci (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. Given the recent circumstances, I think it makes sense that you and Elonka give each other a bit of breathing room as well. I don't want anyone to feel restricted here, but could everyone involved in the recent RfC/RFAR/Recall concerns agree to leave each other be for a while and let other editors take care of any issues that might occur? I think there's a lot of leftover stress from the situation and that we may not all be handling things as well as we would normally like to - a bit of a vacation is always good :) Shell ^babelfish 22:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Shell. As a matter of fact, when Jehochmann filed an RfA against Elonka a couple of weeks ago, I argued against it and said that the best solution would be for each of the disputants to disengage from the others for a while. He agreed and withdrew the RfA. Come to think of it, I don't think Elonka ever commented on that RfA request, so I don't know if she ever saw my comments there. I still think mutual disengagement is the best course of action. There are over 1,000 admins on Wikipedia; there's no need for us to get in each others' way when there are so many others capable of dealing with issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just been assigned this IP again and cannot change your erroneous edit summary that it is an "alternative" account, an assertion that you made having evidence to the contrary, and one that your peers rejected as obviously untrue. I hope you see now how deeply clueless these "notifications" to the talk pages of IP accounts previously assigned to me were.

Forgive me if I add that if you had been open to my suggestion that someone you respect give you a good talking to regarding issues coming out of our encounter, instead of finding it "entertaining", you very possibly could have subsequently saved the community and your own credibility some damage. Presumably there are people you respect who can be critical of your behaviour. 86.44.19.25 (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what edit summary are you talking about? Can you please provide a diff? --Elonka 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[2] 86.44.19.25 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I remember you, yes.[3] Why would you want to change the edit summary from a few months ago though? I'd recommend just ignoring it and moving on. Or even better, start using a named account. --Elonka 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would want to because I have been reassigned it, and it is misleading to people wondering who it is doing any editing i wish to make under it. If you remember me, you remember that i do not wish to have a registered account, and are simply saying that to be annoying. I had hoped you would simply delete the edit, and regret your behaviour, but that would require both honour and humility on your part, so i don't know what i was thinking. I will indeed ignore it and move on, hoping with good reason that since it is your edit, others will do the same. 86.44.19.25 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and wow, please link to the full discussion [4]. I always genuinely wondered whether your mis-statements and misrepresentations there were done out of sheer incompetence or just good ol' dishonesty. 86.44.19.25 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to blank the talkpage if you wish. See

WP:BLANKING. --Elonka

01:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I mentioned having a problem with the talkpage? 86.44.19.25 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to help some people.

So true. 86.44.22.24 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh hooray. *moves on* 86.44.22.24 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[[5]] [[6]] There's a reason that I used an edit description of "per discussion with Naturezak".Kww (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, as long as it's being discussed and you're working things out, I'm happy.  :) The reason I spoke up, is because that article has been the subject of huge edit wars and longterm protections in the past, so I wanted to make sure that we nipped any dispute in the bud. However, if everything's resolved now, that's great.  :) --Elonka 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand. I mediated the discussions that got it to its final state, and still wish that people had just left if protected in that state forever. For such a crappy little film, it manages to a generate some pretty nasty edit wars.Kww (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I'm concerned that you've suddenly decided to become involved in

Heh, nice try. Most of the editors who are banned or blocked would like to be able to ask admins to "disengage" from them, but that's not how it works. --Elonka 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that you are in fact monitoring/stalking my contribs? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to the

Cyrus cylinder article because your talkpage is on my watchlist, and I saw what looked like you threatening a block against another editor that you were having a content dispute with.[7] As you know, this is something that you have been warned about in the past, since you have (repeatedly) misused your admin access to threaten opponents. So far I have no opinion on whether you're right or wrong on the content issues at the Cyrus cylinder article, I'm still reviewing it. But threatening a block was probably not a good idea, considering your past history. Now, are you sure that you want to keep following down this line of inquiry? --Elonka

17:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said below, I was not threatening a block but pointing out that POV deletions of sourced content is the kind of thing that results in blocks. I'm fully aware of the rules on not blocking editors with whom one is in dispute. Now, I have absolutely no interest in feuding with you. There has been enough conflict between us already. Will you remove my user talk page from your watchlist? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you are not in a conflict with me, you are in a conflict with the

ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I, as an uninvolved administrator, was empowered to place sanctions on your editing privileges, since you were behaving in a disruptive manner. If you continue to disrupt, there will be more sanctions in your future. I would recommend that you review the comments at the RfC (and higher up on my talkpage here), which make it clear that the community has supported my actions. --Elonka

19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh, how can the

Cyrus cylinder be construed to be part of the range of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the area of conflict where ARBPIA applies???--Ramdrake (talk

) 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed by this.

Cyrus cylinder has nothing remotely to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict - it's an article about an ancient Babylonian artifact. I know you said you weren't familiar with the subject, but how could you miss something that obvious? -- ChrisO (talk

) 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't mix apples and oranges. I was referring to the previous sanctions that ChrisO has been placed under, which are viewable at

Muhammad al-Durrah article. --Elonka

19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think you are and ChrisO are "uninvolved" anymore after all that's gone on, and I think another administrator should step into this role. –

talk

) 19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could clarify this. Are you intervening on the

Cyrus cylinder under the ARBPIA rubric? Second, I'll repeat my earlier request - will you remove my user talk page from your watchlist? As for Xenocidic's comments, what on earth are you talking about? -- ChrisO (talk

) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you're under some kind of sanction, another admin should be dealing with anything related to that - agreeing that Elonka should take your talk page off her watchlist. –

talk

) 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see - you meant "you and ChrisO". Sorry about the terse response there, I was getting a bit tense... as you can appreciate, I'm really not happy that this seems to be escalating into some sort of feud. I think it's very, very inappropriate that Elonka apparently feels she can insert herself into any dispute I have with any other editor on any topic, well outside the ARBPIA issues. Wikistalking is a form of conduct that Wikipedia has always strongly come down against - it's inappropriate conduct for any editor, let alone an admin. I don't stalk Elonka; there's no reason why she should stalk me. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - unfortunate typo. (Fixed) –

talk

) 19:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Before the obvious gets lost in the usual nebulous partisan thread, it should be noted that

(1)At 16.23 ChrisO wrote:

'‘If you continue to delete sourced, relevant material from expert sources because you have a POV disagreement with it you will be blocked.here

Comment. (a) This is an 'impersonal predictive' statement. It does not say ChrisO will block the editor Creazy Suit for deleting properly sourced material. Chris0 informs the editor what occurs in Wiki when one deletes such material.

Question. Is ChrisO under any obligation to avoid all forms of 'impersonal predictive' language when informing editors who have broken wiki rules (I have a degree in classics, I've checked the dispute: even a sophomore should know that the material deleted was perfectly sourced) that their behaviour, if repeated, is of the kind that suffers sanctions normatively?

(2) At 16:41 ChrisO, in further exchanges after Creazy Suit(whose grasp of English is not perfect) asks him if he is making a thread (= threat), clarifies beyond all doubt that there was nothing personal in his prior comment. For 'deleting sourced material because you don't agree with it is a severe violation of NPOV and will get you blocked by another admin if you don't cease.' here

comment. If there was the slightest ambiguity in his first comment, it is clear from Chris0's second remark that his use of the 'impersonal predictive' is not euphemistic (i.e, it does not mean "'I' will block you", it means "some other administrator will block you" ).

(3)At 16:54-thirteen minutes after this clarification, having (see below) followed this exchange, Elonka begins to edit this page here, and when later asked by Chris0 if she has appeared out of the blue or because she is monitoring him, she replies:

'My attention was drawn to the

Cyrus cylinder article because your talkpage is on my watchlist, and I saw what looked like you threatening a block against another editor that you were having a content dispute with. 27

As you know, this is something that you have been warned about in the past, since you have (repeatedly) misused your admin access to threaten opponents. So far I have no opinion on whether you're right or wrong on the content issues at the Cyrus cylinder article, I'm still reviewing it. But threatening a block was probably not a good idea, considering your past history. Now, are you sure that you want to keep following down this line of inquiry? --Elonka 17:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Elonka admits she follows Chris0's talk page (no impropriety there) and yet, 13 minutes after it was made absolutely clear that Chris0's warning was impersonal, and referred to what another administrator will do if Creazy Suit continues to delete properly sourced material, she intervenes to edit the same page, justifying the intrusion as motivated by concern for the possibility ChrisO might be threatening Creazy Suit. She chose to ignore the second statement made well before her intrusion, and privileged a reading of the first statement for a possible nuance that might arise from a slight ambiguity.

My POV. Given recent events, this intrusion shows poor taste, and smacks of niggling away at old wounds, whatever Elonka's real understanding of this may be (in the line of duty?). Just as justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, the proprieties of administrative neutrality above all odour of suspicion must not only be upheld, but must also be seen by all to be observed, especially in these kinds of interaction. Secondly, I worry when once more a content editor comes under surveillance by a formalist who admits to knowing nothing of the topic. One simply cannot judge even formal exchanges unless you know something about the subject. A mere glance by anyone with some background in classical history would have sufficed to see that, here, ChrisO knew more about reliable sources than his interlocutor, who removed them. Therefore, whatever the Elonka's own motives, it does look like wikistalking Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am actually a classicist, for the record - my former tutor is a leading late-Roman historian. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cyrus cylinder is shown to be connected to the I-P conflict area by this sentence in the lead: "The cylinder has also attracted attention in the context of the repatriation of the Jews to Jerusalem following their Babylonian captivity; many have viewed it as corroboration of the account in the Book of Ezra, though the extent to which this is the case remains disputed." Many sympathetic with the Arab-Palestinian position dispute this as it seems to indicate that the Jews have early history and right to the area. --

That is substantiated in the

No, it is simply correct, (until someone comes forth with evidence that many sympathisers with the Palestinian cause get involved in arguments over the interpretation of the Cyrus cylinder, to disprove the repatriation of Jews from Babylon! Where's the evidence for this extraordinary assertion?). On such a line of assumption, everything from Freud to Isabella of Spain, Spinoza to Einstein, from Genesis to Jimmy Carter, Eric Hobsbawm to Walter Benjamin, links into I/P articles because there is, somewhere, something relevant to Israel or the Jewish people. That leads only to an apagogical absurdity. I don't think we should impose on Elonka's tolerance to cram in a thread on her talk page on a non-starter like that.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's just more proof that what is good for the Elonka to do to others, isn't the same as she would like others to do to her [8]. Shot info (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"So, could you perhaps try to find something else to do on Wikipedia, that isn't related to me?" Can't think of a better way to put it, frankly. How about it, Elonka? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your message. Please see the discussion at User_talk:ChrisO#Fringe_theory. ChrisO was threatening me with a block in the middle of a content dispute, which is highly inappropriate. First quote in question does not belong in the lead for obvious reasons. (It's just one opinion, among many) The second quote in question, advocates a fringe theory, not supported by a single academic, and that fringe assertion was not even placed in quotation marks, to clearly attribute it to the author. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not threatening anything of the sort. As I pointed out, deleting sourced material because you have a personal POV disagreement with it is a categorical violation of

WP:NPOV and is the kind of thing that results in blocks (by other admins, not me in this case). -- ChrisO (talk

) 17:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I rather agree. Would it have been possible to advise another admin without the history with ChrisO to step in and clue him in. Some of these articles - esp. the Cyrus Cylinder article weigh heavily upon the questions of Israeli-Palestinian discussions (notably, the repatriation of the Jews to their homeland, used by some as proof of Jewish rights to populate the area). Chris shouldn't be there, and Elonka, knowing this, should have had someone else point it out. 'Course, that's just my take on it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, but I don't consider any part of Wikipedia to be "off-limits". I have no particular interest in the Israeli-Palestinian angle of this (I wasn't even aware there was one until you mentioned it - do you have any sources to back up that assertion? If so it might be worth mentioning in the article.) My work on it has been solely motivated by my personal and academic interest in ancient history - I qualified as an historian, so it's well within my area of expertise. But I really don't know why Elonka feels she has to intervene any time someone posts on my talk page. I consider that to be wikistalking, and it's highly inappropriate conduct. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that ChrisO knows better than to use admin tools in that topic area, so I wouldn't worry about that. As for the specific article, I'm afraid I have no opinion on the content, but it's probably not a good idea to be deleting citations to reliable sources. Better is to adapt the information from those sources. If you think that an opinion is fringe, but it appears to be coming from a solid source, it's better to edit it down, or move it to a section that covers modern theories. Please leave the citations alone though, unless there is a clear consensus to remove them. --Elonka 17:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris, the source of my statement is both from my own education as well as the article itself, which points out the repatriation stuff. As a historical scholar, I am somewhat surprised you aren't aware of its modern-day propaganda usage. Admins (and editors) tend to watchlist those pages of people they think might present a recurring problem. I am sure I am on a few watchlists bc of my past tendency to skull-fuck people I disagreed with, and chances are, if I continue to present less of that behavior, some of those folk are going to get bored and drop me of their list. Some won't, and both you and I should learn to simply ignore those folk, as they are not very flexible in the forgiveness department (and some aren't worth the headache of listening to anyway).

You are under some restrictions to stay away from Israeli-Palestinian articles. Editing articles that work arguments in that discussion is, at best, disingenuous. Not saying you are actually being sneaky, but by someone less inclined to offer you AGF, it certainly appears suspicious. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no, I'm not under any such restrictions. Where are you getting that from? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the link, if it exists (re-reading the article only mentions that some people interpret one sentence of the cylinder as referring to Cyrus' policy of allowing deportees to return to their original lands - quite a stretch to the Israel-Palestine conflict) is very tenuous. One might as well say that the

Tanakh. But I'll agree that one way or another, Elonka seems to be overstretching her authority again here.--Ramdrake (talk

) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Arcayne might have been thinking of an old version of the article? I've not been through the editing history to any great extent. The current version, even as it was before I started editing, said absolutely nothing about the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is why I was rather surprised when Arcayne brought it up. None of the academic sources I've consulted about the Cyrus cylinder have mentioned the I-P conflict in any way - a few have mentioned the late Shah's apparently rather propagandistic use of it in the early 1970s, but I've not seen any discussions of political interests more recent than that. It seems a very fringey connection to make, to be honest. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the least "fringey," frankly. Here is an article entitled "How Jews and Arabs Use (and Misuse) the History of Jerusalem to Score Points [9] by Eric H. Cline, whose credentials are there at the History Network site. Cyrus even gets a mention there.

talk

) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It talks about Saddam Hussein associating himself with Cyrus (which seems a bit odd; I can understand his wish to be associated with Mesopotamian rulers, but Persian ones too?). I don't see any evidence from that article that it's a mainstream Arab position, and it doesn't mention the cylinder at all, so that article by itself doesn't support the case that the cylinder - as opposed to Cyrus in general - is an issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict. As I said, I've certainly never seen anything that would suggest that in the sources I've consulted. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying anything is a mainstream Arab position, though I suspect a case could be made. However, anything that has to do with the status of Jerusalem or "The Holy Land" in history, either contemporary or ancient, can be and is used as propaganda and should be under I-P conflict umbrella.

talk

) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, that's quite irrelevant. Argument on anything is only valid, if what is said or written by one's interlocutor or adversary is construed precisely. Using misreadings to then attack or refute them, as though one were replying to the seminal question or proposition, is what is know these days as using a strawman argument. ChrisO said 'propagandistic use of it (the Cyrus Cylinder) seems fringey. We are talking about the use of the Cyrus Cylinder in I/P debates. Cline's material is familiar ground, but has no mention of the Cyrus Cylinder. The Cyrus Cylinder does not even mention the return of the Jews. Freud circa 193O wrote a famous letter in reply to a rabbinical query on Zionism. Are therefore editors drafting any one of the hundreds of articles on psychoanalysis to come under Arbcom restrictions governing I/P subjects? This is absurd. Metaphorically, if one has something in one's sights, one does well to use live ammunition, not dud slugs or cartridges liable to explode in the hunter's face. I suggest a refresher on the Socratic elenchus.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, that you are clearly aware of the problem when you say that "The Cyrus Cylinder does not even mention the return of the Jews." As the article goes on to say in the Old Testament section - "Although it does not mention Judah or the Jews, the last phrase of line 32 has been interpreted as a reference to Cyrus' policy of allowing deportees to return to their original lands. The very fact that this important part of the Cylinder has been relegated only to the bottom of the article as "religion" and not included in the "Content" section demonstrates how much

talk

) 15:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Look for political spin everywhere, and one will find it, whether it's there or not. Skewed methods produce the evidence those who employ them desire. In saying 'red-herring' all you are doing is brandishing a linkable cliché as an ersatz for rational argument, since the exemplum of Freud's letter fits the matrix you are, uniquely, trying to thrust on wikipedia. I suppose anyone, at this point, editing an obscure page like that on the

Execration Texts (keep off it, ChrisO, for Chrissake!!) must come under I/P administration cautions because those fragmentary texts happen to mention Jerusalem a roughly a 1,00O years before it became, under David, a Hebrew town? I'm sure we are boring our host Elonka, and have overstayed our welcome on this trivial nitpicking, and suggest the point be dropped or taken elsewhere.Nishidani (talk

) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. It looks like you and I (and others) have different ideas of tag teams. Since essay is not policy, anyone's view should be expressed, the question is how best to achieve this. My question is: do you believe that the various people who have been going back and forth on the tag team essay can actually work out a consensus version? I have my doubts and if you too have doubts I would like to propose two alternatives. First, we could just compose two different essays, with different titles, reflecting different views of tag-teaming - this has been done before and as far as I know doesn't violate any policy. Second, we could try to write an essay about a debate about tag teams - structure the essay explicitly to highlight two different views. I do not know if this has been done before but I see no reason not to do it and it sounds interesting. I just want to avoid an impasse on this essay that has drawn a lot of attention. Do any of these three appeal to you? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much like the idea of one essay with two (or more) different views, which I think would be really effective communication. Plus it's very wiki.  :) --Elonka 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you feel that way. I will not have much time for Wikipedia this week, but if you want to propose a structure to the essay on the essay's talk page that would accomplish this I will support it, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A good test case is the civility question. Some editors feel that the essay should say, "The term is always uncivil." Others have tried to change it to a compromise version such as, "Some editors feel the term is uncivil", but they just get reverted. So how can we allow the essay to say that some editors think one thing, and some another, without the "always/never" folks reverting on the spot? --Elonka 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how many other differences there are - it may be worth having two separate sections. I think it is time to ask if there is some underlying philosophical difference between the two groups - if so, the essay would be as much an opportunity to explain these philosophical differences as to lay out specific atittudes towards tag-teaming. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If the task force is still active, you may want to look at this. I wouldn't say it has been reduced to tag-teaming, yet, but it illustrates many of the NPOV problems when editors' ethnicity or nationality is involved. I am close to moving for an RfC but thought you and the task force members might want to look it over first and see if you have anything constructive to suggest. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the whole Polish/Lithuanian mess. I've looked at that, and think that what it really needs is a completely neutral admin who will identify the key participants, scan for potential tag-teaming, and try to maintain order. Unfortunately, since I've edited Polish articles in the past, I'm probably not the right admin for it, unless both sides would agree to my participation (which I doubt they would). As far as the task force, we looked at the attempt at conflict resolution there in the past, specifically as to why it failed in that particular topic area: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution#Activity. The general sense I got was that it failed because of the lack of a strong neutral authority, so things just degenerated into bickerfests with no resolution. If the topic area could find an admin willing to withstand the peer pressure, tag-team attacks, and perception of partisanship, I think it would help a lot. Such an admin would have to have a really thick skin though, and would have to be willing to make really controversial bans or blocks against longterm established editors that were expert wikilawyers. So it would require considerable fortitude, and willingness to ride out ArbCom appeals, RfCs, recalls, etc. I do think it's possible though.  :) --Elonka 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right - I doubt I would be acceptable to both sides, I wish there were someone willing to take this on... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it is a Polish/Jewish mess, no Lithuanians involved in this particular one. Othar than that, I think Elonka is quite right with her observations regarding the P/L one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka,

Elonka, perhaps you could remind this editor that a) you did not ban me, it was another admin, although you did support the ban; and b) the ban was not for any BLP violation, but for supposedly edit-warring (with oddly, yourself and this editor, but let's ignore that for now). I think this is the third time he has turned up on various pages to make the latter accusation, along with accusations that I am a "disruptive editor" eg here, which is hardly backed up by the overall pattern of my editing. It seems to be little more than rather pointless muckspreading. I don't normally come bleating to administrators, but since CM seems to make a habit of coming here to make complaints about me, I thought it only fair that I say something in response. I know you are concerned in particular about civility issues. --

talk

) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, this is not about you, but about PR. Your coming here gives the impression that you are stalking me, or monitoring my contributions - please don't do that. And finally, since you have repeated this flase claim elswhere, let's set the record straight: You were banned for, among other things, BLP violations, as User:Coren clearly indicated : 'you have persisted despite numerous warnings and expressed BLP concerns.' Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people know about this claim you're making against me, because, by pure good fortune, I spotted what you were saying here and I have informed everyone on my "I'll help but don't use my name in public" list. In the light of various intemperate behaviors, I was waiting for their response before defending myself. In the meantime, I would be happy to replace "conspiracy theorist" with "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania" if that would pacify you. PR^talk 17:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What to you mean by "by pure good fortune, I spotted what you were saying"? I made this comment as a repsonse to your own post, on that very page, a few hours earlier. I meant for you to see it, and asked you a question, which I will repeat again: who is your current mentor, as required by your editing restrictions? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked into the complaints, and note that PalestineRemembered is not putting BLP violations into articles, but that there may be some "grey area" in terms of what's being said on talkpages. BLP does indeed has a little bit of leeway on talkpages, since sometimes it is necessary to talk about a term, in order to decide whether or not the sources are solid enough to include it in an article. So, for now, I've added the {{NOINDEX}} tag to Talk:Nahum Shahaf to keep it off the search engines, and I think it's reasonable to allow discussions to continue for a bit longer. Then later on, we can potentially courtesy-blank the relevant sections, depending on how the discussions go. See also Talk:Nahum Shahaf#BLP. --Elonka 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Elonka - the deeper I look at every part of

the other article

, the more I'm alarmed by the BLP issue. It states (our words, not a quote): "The "maximalist" narrative asserted that the entire incident had been a hoax staged for propaganda purposes, that the footage did not show al-Durrah being killed, and that the affair had been concocted as a "prime-time blood libel"[87] by Charles Enderlin, the cameraman, the al-Durrahs and other Palestinian and Arab parties. [10] Enderlin and others have criticized this view as a conspiracy theory.[70][31]", referenced to #87 "Glick, Caroline. "Prime-time blood libels". Jerusalem Post, October 24, 2006", #10 "Schwartz, Adi. "In the footsteps of the al-Dura controversy", Haaretz, 8 November 2007.", #70 "Zlotowski, Michel. "French TV channel sues for libel over death of Palestinian boy in 2000". Jerusalem Post, 14 September 2006" and #31 "Israeli, Palestinian Soldiers Exchange Fire in Gaza." Xinhua News Agency, September 30, 2000".

Now, only one of these reports (ref #10, Haaretz "footsteps") is on the web and verifiable. But it adds nothing to the parts of the story to which it is referenced - it has no "libel" (let alone "blood-libel"), no "concocted" (or "concoctions"), no "parties" (Palestinian, Arab or other), no "al-Duras" (let alone "al-Durrahs") - and not even any "cameraman"!. While it uses "maximalist", it actually says "in the blogosphere, the "maximalist version" developed". The only mention of "hoax" is a direct quote of Karsenty, and the article practically dismisses it eg "two senior French journalists, Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte, leveled harsh criticism at Enderlin and his story. ... 'he had no possibility of determining that he was in fact dead, and even less so, that he had been shot by IDF soldiers.' At the same time, the two noted explicitly that, 'We do not share the opinion that the incident was staged.'"

Under these circumstances, it would appear that parts of the article have been deliberately written as a BLP violation that has no basis in the verifiable record (and quite possibly, no basis whatsoever). The word "hoax" appears 5 times, including in the lead, in an article that almost looks as if it was written in order to ring alarm bells about journalist integrity in every reader. Yet our article barely mentions the word "blog" (2 out of 3 cases in the article section "Other libel cases" - while the Haaretz article above (just as an instance) uses "blogosphere" 3 times and "blogger" once.

This article is picked up elsewhere in the project, eg top of a list of "extreme examples of controversial reporting", so any BLP offense is becoming multiplied. (Needless to say, all this makes it even odder that I'm being threatened with being dragged over the coals for replacing "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania" with "conspiracy theorist" in a comment on a TalkPage).

I've previously argued for administrative action on the TalkPage - it now looks as if it's even more urgent at the article. If, as it would appear, there have been editors recklessly using the article to publish a BLP (with references that are at least partly falsified), then I must look to someone at a higher pay-grade than myself to suggest what to do about it. PR^talk 09:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, as requested, can you please explain to this editor that I was not banned for BLP violations. This is in effect an implicit accusation that I have been committing libel via my contributions here. It is simply not true, the ban was very specifically for supposed edit warring, as explained in full here. Selectively quoting the ban notification as CM has done above, from the part where it separately mentions BLP "concerns" - which existed but which were a matter of genuine dispute - is borderline dishonest. And no CM I have not been following your contributions - you clearly have been following mine though, for example suddenly turning up on this article to revert some of my basic tidying up and appearing here out of the blue after another editor dropped me a note on my talk page asking me to help out with it. Please find me any article dealing with unrelated issues where I have suddenly turned up after apparently following you there. To suggest that if I notice when you are spreading falsehoods about my editing I cannot respond and ask you to correct the misinformation you are putting about without being accused of stalking you, seems a little odd. I will admit that I do keep an eye on what you say in relation to the Durrah stuff, but that is simply because you seem to have chosen to launch some kind of campaign against me, taking every opportunity to accuse me of being a BLP-violator, disruptive editor or whatever across several talk pages.

On the BLP issue itself, I think we need some clarity. We are not talking about accusations of wrong doing based on poor sourcing, for example sourcing a claim that "Mr X is guilty of fraud" to an internet blog. An attempt was made to include information that an individual was described in a certain way, which could be seen as negative, in one or more mainstream newspaper comment pieces. That information was properly attributed, rather than being included on the WP page as if it were a statement of fact. As far as I know there are no legal proceedings in hand against either paper on account of the columns. Let's take an equivalent example from a current and more high profile situation - would it be a BLP violation to include in the Barack Obama/Sarah Palin articles that "he/she has been described by [a writer] in the Washington Post as lacking the necessary experience to be President/Vice-President"? In my view it would be pretty hard to make that claim. --

talk

) 09:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the numerous accusations that have been made against Charles Enderlin and Jamal al-Durrah by various POV-pushers have been ignored. I got involved in this mess in the first place because of the chronic BLP violations that were going on without any remedy. In the case of Enderlin, it's far more of a pressing concern than anything that might have been said about Shahaf - might I remind you all that the accusations against Enderlin are the subject of ongoing libel litigation? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, feel free to rescind the topic ban. Because in that case the only realistic options I can see are (a) to restore Moreschi's block, or (b) as I said, to assign a mentor. Are you volunteering? Black Kite 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for riding roughshod over that topic ban, despite the consensus at ANI that this is a tendentious editor. From now on, I shall expect you to be watching all of this editor's work, and reverting all of his problematic edits. Black Kite 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, FYI, you cannot just issue a no-notice topic ban, on your say-so. Topic bans need either backing from an ArbCom case (which does not apply to this situation), or a clear community consensus. Even if there was an ArbCom case, then it would still require a formal warning to the user beforehand, and then logging the ban to the ArbCom case page. And if the ban was approved by community consensus, then you need to diff the proof of the discussion to the user's talkpage. As near as I can tell, you did none of these things.[10] Also, the main problem that I have with Moreschi's block, is that he issued a 3-month block against a longtime contributor, without ever posting a single warning to the contributor's talkpage, and even though Moreschi was actively editing in the same topic area. Now, I'm willing to keep an eye on Dark Tea's edits, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to be following along behind them and reverting, especially since I am not familiar with the topic area. I will, however, be interested to see if editors who are familiar with the topic area, can provide specific proof of policy violations. What exactly did Dark Tea do? Did he add unsourced information? Use unreliable sources? Misinterpret information from reliable sources? Delete citations for no good reason? Edit an article in violation of talkpage consensus? Ignore the results of an RfC? Engage in edit wars? If so, please provide proof, as I'd be happy to take a look at it. --Elonka 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this right - you unilaterally revoked that topic ban despite (a) not being aware of the problematic nature of his edits (b) clearly not having read the ANI thread, with its multiple example diffs, and (c) not being willing to revert his problematic edits? Thanks for that. I'd suggest you go and read the ANI thread now. Black Kite 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read every single diff provided at

the ANI thread, and I'm not seeing the problem. I do see cases where Dark Tea's writing style and formatting could be better, but I saw nothing blockworthy. Instead I saw Dark Tea being scrupulous about sourcing additions, and being equally careful about removing unsourced information. But, while looking deeper into this situation, here are some diffs that I did find, which are looking like abuse of administrator access: At Historical definitions of races in India, Moreschi came in on September 11 and did some copyediting, including deletion of a large chunk of the article, including deleting many citations to what appear to be reliable sources.[11] An hour later, Dark Tea reverted Moreschi.[12] A half-hour later, Moreschi reverted Dark Tea.[13] One minute later, Moreschi blocked Dark Tea for three months.[14] This is exactly what administrators are told not to do. Administrators simply should not be using administrator tools in situations where they are personally involved, and especially not to gain the advantage in a content dispute. Moreschi blocked an established contributor, with not a single warning to that user's talkpage. So, Black Kite, if you'd like to be indignant about something, you might want to start with Moreschi's actions, not those of Dark Tea. --Elonka

00:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am disinterested in Moreschi's actions here; my only concern is to try and prevent Dark Tea degrading any more of our articles, something which I would have though you would also have an interest in. If you seriously can't see the problematic nature of Dark Tea's edits - repeatedly adding confused commentary and theories, and spurious/irrelevant material, often with a dash of synthesis of quotations and sources - then I would suggest that you let others deal with this.

Wikipedia:FTN#Caucasian_race

, linked from that ANI thread, is useful as a basis of understanding for the scope and depth of the problem here; this quote is particularly relevant

• "Wikipedia is now coming of age ... and we finally need an admin population that can recognize rambling nonsense when they see it, and feel obliged to help cleaning it up rather than throwing up obstacles for those who do on grounds of a muddle-headed idea of neutrality and political correctness."

Black Kite 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You made my quotes! Two new favorite quotes added in one day is a real record (; [15] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) One of my own favorite quotes these days is by (now-retired) arbitrator Paul August: "For me, contributing to Wikipedia is a noble act. Knowledge is power. We can all feel justifiably proud that the words we are helping to write, will help to empower untold millions of people, all over the world. However Wikipedia is not a perfect world. There are plenty of people, who go out of their way to attack and disrupt, more of us need to go out of our way to cherish and support. It is probably not enough for us to simply be polite, reasonable and constructive. We need to do more. We need to actively cultivate, nurture and sustain our fellow editors."[16] --Elonka 04:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka. This drive-by intervention, quite apart from suggesting that you are now following me around this place, was incredibly unhelpful. You have merely given encouragement to an editor who is is wandering through articles here deleting vast amounts of usually well sourced content in areas where he has absolutely no understanding of the issues at hand. I had suggested that what they were doing was close to vandalism (not vandalism per se) as a kind of informal warning to them, and you completely undermined that without even looking into the nature of the problem. Within an hour of your talk page post, that editor - who until that point had at least been held back and been engaged with great patience on the talk page - proceeded to gut the article with a series of 35 edits, mostly deletions of whole paragraphs and sections. Within ten minutes of finishing there, he moved on to another article and deleted the entire page in one edit. Admittedly the second page did have some citation issues, but this was clear-cut vandalism. Increasingly your actions as an admin seem to be more damaging than helpful. Not content with unilaterally maintaining what is now a perfectly stable page under continued extraordinary restrictions, without any attempt that I could see to consult any other, non-involved editors or admins (which could now last for as long as 6 months - unprecedented surely for an article that is not itself as an article generating off-wikipedia problems), you are now facilitating vandalism to other parts of the encyclopedia. Despite what you may think of my editing, most of what I do here is actually all about preventing this kind of damage, upholding WP policy and ensuring articles avoid glaring imbalance (when compared to reliable sources out in the real world). Perhaps you could assume good faith a little more? Thank you --

Nickhh, I have sympathy for the fact that you feel that you are dealing with a POV-pusher. There are

WP:ANI

, pick an edit war thread at random that you know nothing about, and try to come up to speed rapidly and figure out what should be done. I think you'll quickly see that it's very difficult to wade into a topic area that you know very little about, with editor names that you don't recognize, articles you've never read, and sources that you're not familiar with, and try to figure out where "neutrality" is. That's why in many of these cases, admins simply protect the page and move on, rather than trying to sort out who's doing what.

Don't get me wrong: Most admins are open to taking administrative action on POV pushers, but for best results, you need to try and make their jobs as easy as possible, rather than requiring them to go trawling through everyone's contribs. Specific things that I personally like to see are actual

diffs

. For example:

• A diff of talkpage consensus, and a diff of the editor doing something which violated that consensus. Especially if such consensus is the result of an RfC.
• A diff of an editor inserting unsourced (and plausibly false) information
• A diff of an editor inserting apparently sourced information, that in actuality doesn't match up with the source that they're citing
• A diff of an editor removing citations to reliable sources
• A diff of an editor adding citations to (clearly) unreliable sources
• Diffs of an edit war (though remember, it takes two to edit war)
• Diffs of an editor repeatedly inserting BLP-violating information
• Diffs of an editor being uncivil, or commenting on contributors at an article talkpage, instead on engaging in good faith discussion about the article content.

I took a look at the diffs you provided, and have cautioned Raggz about page blanking. If there are further issues, or if you have diffs of anything else from the above list, let me know and I assure you that I'll take a look. Otherwise, I recommend proceeding to another step of

mediation, or posting for help at a relevant noticeboard. Then once you've got RfC results, you may be able to provide a diff that will match that first bullet point I mentioned. Hope that helps, --Elonka

20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you seem to have a lot going on here. How exciting. I just wanted to thank you for your input. I read your suggestions and found them helpful. Before I read them I added two requests for editprotects, to alter false statements in the article (supported by verifiable sources like the government archive at the library of congress...) that have not been disputed on the talk page. Mostly I just wanted to thank you though, and also to let you know that I did an RFC. I think that's what's it's called. I know it's not KFC. Anyway, I'm not wearing a flak jacket, so I better head out... Good luck and have fun. Thanks again.(Wallamoose (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)) Oops, so much for my RfC. I can't seem to get the formatting correct. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the kind words.  :) And yes, I'll take a look. Oh, and sorry about the RfC difficulties you've been having... We've been having discussions on making the bot a bit more user-friendly, but it's not quite there yet. Glad to see you got it figured out though.  :) --Elonka 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret that this was necessary. My issues are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Improper_and_unhelpful_intervention_by_Administrator_Elonka Raggz (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been marked "resolved" by Jehochman with "Complaint has no merit, editor is suitably warned."[17]. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Now archived, at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive168#Improper and unhelpful intervention by Administrator Elonka. --Elonka 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:-D --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I'm taking notes

Heh, thanks. I have my moments.  ;) --Elonka 05:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Had it not been agreed by everyone that user User talk:Michellecrisp was no longer to be "all over his [ie] my edits? I have assiduously avoided matters of interest to him or her, but here she or he is again! Please help! Masalai (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

how is this all over your edits? It's 1 article you're editing that I've put up for peer review after another editor has expressed significant concern. I'm trying to resolve issues to improve page. If you continue this attitude, I'll have no hesitation taking this matter up. Let's stick to improving Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And why, then, would an editor in Queensland, Australia, be taking such a close interest in an article on an extremely minor village in Saskatchewan, Canada? This has to constitute stalking and it is beyond creepy. Masalai (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. same could be asked of you. You claim to live in Queensland as indicated in this edit when you suddenly appeared interested in Australian university articles that I was editing, despite almost your edits being of Canadian articles. Secondly, check my edit history, I edit geography articles worldwide. You don't. Please desist from personal attacks. Michellecrisp (talk

) 14:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, is this still going on? Y'know, my first reaction is, "Guys, get a room."  ;) Seriously though: Masalai, you are correct that there was a problem in the past, but I have not seen recent issues of Michellecrisp suddenly showing up all over your watchlist. She did open the peer review on that article, Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, but there was already an active Request for Comment (not started by her), so it's reasonable that other editors would be looking in. Michellecrisp, for your part though, it does seem (to me) that the only reason you're there in the first place is because you check in on Masalai's contribs from time to time. So I recommend that you try to be a bit more sensitive to his concerns, rather than trying to feign innocence or accusing him of personal attacks. Just be honest about what you're doing, and try to treat him with respect. Masalai, same for you, try to ratchet back the rhetoric? Just because you see her name, doesn't mean she's damaging the project. Try to save the complaints for when she's actually doing something negative (if ever?) --Elonka 15:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka. I hope I can now continue editing without being questioned. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. A follow up to my recent post here. You've been active recently at Wikipedia talk:Civility. Would you be interested in commenting at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here, as far as I know, people are not allowed to be inside the Kaaba. Do you have any sources for this?

Any worshippers who might find themselves inside the Kaaba at the time of prayer, are allowed to face in any direction.

--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a common occurrence these days, but yes, the Kaaba can be entered by certain VIPs. See Kaaba#Cleaning for a picture. As for where I read that particular factoid, I'll check my sources to get a specific citation. Also, keep in mind that the Kaaba and surrounding Mosque have been in many different configurations over the centuries. In Muhammad's time, it was routine for people to enter the building, since it was where hundreds of different idols were stored, which were the totems of the various tribes around the Saudi Arabian peninsula. There are various traveler accounts of the idols, right down to which ones were broken, and what kind of offerings were placed in front of them. Also, even in more modern times, plenty of people have been inside the the Kaaba for renovations and whatnot. The building itself is thousands of years old, but it gets remodeled every so often. As I recall, the current interior is less than a hundred years old (see Zamzam Well#History for a sense of the periodic renovations in the mosque). Anyway, if you have serious concerns about the information, you're of course welcome to remove it until I re-find the cite, and then I'll just add it back later when I have the source in hand. --Elonka 04:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of the cleaning procedure. I will not remove the statement, but do find a source or if you cant, its best for you to remove it until a source is found otherwise it looks like OR even though we know its true. Proceed as you want. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Though as long as you're on a cleanup drive, you might want to remove some other unsourced stuff on that page. And if you could, I'd recommend taking a look at the sections attributed to Patricia Crone, as those are probably a violation of

WP:UNDUE. One or two sentences about her theories might be appropriate, but not as much as there is. --Elonka

16:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I dont have time to clean it up. I just saw your edit, but if I see any more from anyone, I'll take them out. I'll check it out though. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I noticed your revert of the disputed tagging at

Yes, I've been following it. I tried posting a bit ago, ran into edit conflicts, and gave up.  :) I'll try again later though. --Elonka 04:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. That might have been me. I've stopped editing there now, so it might be clear. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, in this edit summary, you implied that I acted in bad faith (making an edit motivated by WP:POINT is bad faith, IMO.) But OK, I am not here to try to convince you to change your opinion of myself. If you think that my Wikipedia actions are bad faith motivated, so be it. However, I would request that you explain at the talk page of

disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please find other ways of encouraging change. --Elonka

20:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that you did not answer the question. I asked you to explain how, in view of the discussion at the talk page, you see a consensus of editors that the current state of this page reflects the views shared by the community, You, instead, repeated your accusation that I made a bad faith edit motivated by my desire to make a

WP:POINT. You do not need to go into that again. While I think your accusation is unfair, I am not in the business of demanding retractions and extracting apologies. You are free to stick to your opinion about my edit but please answer the specific question above instead of talking it away. --Irpen

20:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am planning to stay in the category, but update my recall criteria. Still wordsmithing off-wiki though. --Elonka 20:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

cheers, –

talk

) 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Elonka, I've probably already mentioned this to you, but just in case I haven't: I think it's a good idea to look at Lar's recall procedure for ideas. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with Lar's criteria. However, I find them far too complicated, and most other admins that I have spoken to about it, agree. What I'd like to end up with is something fairly simple and easy to understand, which does allow the community to ask for resignation if an admin becomes a problem, but doesn't allow frivolous requests. Because of the areas where I am participating in ArbCom enforcement, it's been made clear to me that some groups of editors will stop at nothing to get me out of "their" topic area. I'm not crazy about the idea of having to undergo a recall request or RfC each time I implement a discretionary sanction.

What I'm leaning towards is a set of recall criteria which require proof that an admin has repeatedly misused admin tools. For example, if an admin has repeatedly deleted articles where the deletions were overturned at DRV, or blocked editors where the blocks were overturned at ANI, or an admin issued ArbCom discretionary sanctions and those sanctions were repeatedly overturned on appeal, then it would be reasonable to assume that the community might have concerns as to whether or not that admin should continue to maintain administrator access, and a recall might be legitimate. But in a case where an administrator has not abused tools or access, a recall should probably not be possible. So, I'm looking through various other administrators' recall criteria, and thinking hard about the entire situation, and trying to decide what to write up for my own criteria. --Elonka 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You might look at User:Pedro/Recall and User:MBisanz/Recall which have some twists other methods don't have. MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! There's definitely some food for thought there... :) --Elonka 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For example, if an admin deletes a large number of articles, they should be able to have a certain small proportion of them overturned at DRV without being considered abusing the tools (and if they delete a very large number of articles, that could work out to a large number of DRV overturns). If an admin deletes only a small number of articles, they should be allowed to make some mistakes as someone relatively inexperienced at deletion.

Re complicated procedures: as in legal documents, each complexity is there for a reason. If you leave them out, you have to be prepared to face situations that may arise without the benefit of procedures that were well-designed for those particular situations. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted detailed standards at User:Elonka/Recall. Please feel free to poke holes in it or offer suggestions, either here or at the related talkpage. --Elonka 05:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

You are welcome to file a report at WP:RFCU, if you have an idea who the sockmaster is. --Elonka 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I only have a suspicion at this point and nothing substantive. Thank you, though, for pointing me to WP:RFCU. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Far from passing out judgments equally to all involved, you single out me. There are other people involved in this and you focus on me. I'm concerned that you are not able to properly administer. I hereby declare you to be a compromised administrator and ask you in the future to get outside help when you try to use the force of administrative powers with respect to me. Just ask for another administrator to do it and all will be gravy.

Two other editors on that page have also been warned, not just you. --Elonka 21:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not by you: [20]. In fact, you seem content to try to mitigate the sanctions put in place with respect to other editors there.

talk

) 21:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, there are multiple administrators helping to manage the page. This is a good thing. --Elonka 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to find someone else to manage me.

talk

) 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As you have worked to restore order to Quackwatch, I thought I'd let you know of my imposition of 0rr on User:Levine2112 following a threat to edit war on that page. Comments welcome, Vsmith (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree that there's problematic behavior, but by what authority are you issuing a 0RR restriction? If an ArbCom case, you need to cite which case, and there needs to be proof that the user has been formally warned ahead of time. Has Levine2112 been so warned? Also, restrictions should probably have time limits. A better way to handle this would be to give him a formal ArbCom warning, with a caution "Don't edit war, try dispute resolution instead." And then if he still edit wars after that, then a brief 0RR restriction might be reasonable. --Elonka 19:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We do have differing approaches :-) I see a blatant threat to revert and edit war as requiring action - not dilly-dallying. Levine2112 is fully aware of the previous problems with that page and the warning at the top of the talk page, so why wait? Simply take preventative action. Which I have done. Anyone else promising to revert and edit war as she/he did will be subject to the same. Vsmith (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, different approaches.  :) Though not all other administrators agree with me, I find that when imposing sanctions, or blocks, on established editors, the best way to make restrictions "stick" is to proceed cautiously. Issue warnings first, and then sanctions only if the warnings don't work. I agree that Levine2112 needed a warning, but I think it was a bit hasty to impose 0RR without at least a caution (I see that you have since amended this, good idea). The ultimate result will be the same, right? If he ignores the caution, then we can impose 0RR. But my guess is that he will respect the caution, and be better about engaging at the talkpage.

Proceeding a bit more slowly, serves multiple good purposes. Not just being kinder & gentler to Levine2112, but you can also bet money that other editors are observing how this is handled. For any one person who posts to a page, there are probably 10 or more lurkers who are watching but not posting. In some cases, "good" editors may be frightened away from an article by the conflict, or fear of administrative action. If an administrator is seen as imposing a no-notice sanction, this can increase tension all around, and make it less likely for some of those lurkers to participate at all. But if it is shown that sanctions are implemented in a calm and measured fashion, then other lurking editors who had been hiding from the edit war, may slowly begin to come out of the woodwork and be more likely to participate. Or to put it another way: Imagine if you were editing a highly-controversial article, and suddenly an admin came out of nowhere and slapped a restriction on you without warning. When you complained, you just get told, "You should've known." Wouldn't you see that as slightly unfair? So, it's better to communicate clearly: State what the potential restrictions are, explain how behavior needs to change, explain the consequences if someone's behavior doesn't change, and this can help create a structure which will help to stabilize an article. --Elonka 22:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess my main problem here is that I feel that I've been warned for really doing nothing harmful. The reason Vsmith has given for my warning is that I threatened edit war. However, this is untrue (most likely the result of a misunderstanding somewhere along the lines). Never did I threaten edit-war. I stated the reasons why I was going to revert (an editor had editted againt consensus and without discussion) and then I reverted once and only once. I feel that given the volatile nature of the article and given that there was already a consensus to revert to the last stable version of the article and to discuss all future contentious edits before implementation, my one revert was wholly justified. I made no mention of the continuance of such reverts nor did I hint that I would revert again. So where is this threat of edit war which Vsmith claims I have made? I know that it is just a warning and seeming causes no harm, but I honestly feel it is misplaced. My fear is that similar action from me in the future (that of abiding by consensus, giving an explantion of my actions, etc) will be rewarded with more punishment, which coupled with this ill-given warning may result in a block or ban (even though I have done nothing worthy of such a penalty). Again, I ask that this warning be lifted and we can move on from there. Thanks. --

^discuss

21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for assisting. I'm a bit concerned at Missioned (talk · contribs) created right during the edit war. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess you think this is appropriate?

SA, which edit do you think is improper? You aren't using a proper diff, but one with an intermediate edit. That's confusing. --

talk

14:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)