User talk:Elonka

Vandalism to my talk page

Hi Elonka, a user named User:Phenomenon8980 has been repeatedly blanking my talk page. I have left several messages on his/her talk page concerning talk page guidelines. He/She is angry because I redirected a character page Melanie Layton, back to Days of Our Lives because she does not meet WP:NOTE. I told the user I had no personal grievances against him/her, but I am just trying to follow rules. I have been civil, and not posted any threatening messages. This user just continues to blank my page though. Please advise. If you are the wrong person to contact, please tell me who is. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Bish got it. Though, I see you were edit-warring with Phenomenon at the Melanie Layton article. Instead of just going back and forth like that, a better option is to file a quick AfD. Also, please read WP:BITE and WP:VANDAL#NOT... Phen looks like s/he may have the makings of a good editor who could be really helpful at the Soaps Project, so it's better to try and nurture potential talent, instead of just tussling and accusing them of vandalism. Remember, we need all the good help we can get!  :) --Elonka 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I do need your help filling out a request for deletion. I would also ask that you again warn Phenonmenon8980 to stop harrassing me. I have been nothing but civil to him her, and am not trying to have a conflict. I am just trying to make this site reliable, while he/she continues the verbal assault. Thank you so much for all your help in this matter. Rm994 (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the page, tagged it as needing references, and posted a note at the talkpage about a possible way to handle it. Hopefully we can have a civil discussion on how to proceed. If this doesn't work, we can always go to an AfD. --Elonka 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help with this. I don't know what s/he is actually talking about, as my last post was yesterday. It seems to me that this user simply does not understand the rules regarding talk page etiquette, civility, or the rules of articles. My only intention was to help s/he understand the rules. I believe I was civil enough. I have made my contribution to the Melanie Layton talk page, and that is where it will end. I will not engage in any more debates with him/her. 3 editors have now suggested that it be merged with minor characters. It was never my intention to anger this user, simply just to explain the rules. Again...I REALLY appreciate all your help. Rm994 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I redirected the Melanie Layton article. Thanks again for your help. Rm994 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. If it gets reverted again, take it to AfD, or ping me and I'll file it. --Elonka 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Melanie Layton was reverted back, so how should we proceed? Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've initiated an AfD. — TAnthony^Talk 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Email from User:HabsMTL to User: Phenomenon8980. (email removed)

I am writing on behalf of Phenomenon8980. He has not contacted User: RM994 for any reason since they've had their conflict. Phenomenon8980 is highly upset and plans to now continue harrassing both users if he is not apologized to. It is clear that noone is interested in letting Phenomenon 8980 take the high road. 131.247.244.190 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please forward the email to me: elonka@aol.com --Elonka 16:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony keeps sending me sockpuppet violations. I don't know what this is and I havent contacted him at all for any reason for about a week. I have been blocked. He continues to have some personal vendetta against me eventhough he was already successful in having all my articles that I created deleted. If he doesnt stop harrasing me I will call the police. Phenomenon8980 (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note my comment here, posted before I read this comment on your talk page. — TAnthony^Talk 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

???

Did you write this?

Jehochman to point out that he has a strong COI on the Search engine optimization article, considering that he is an executive in an SEO firm, and has been involved in a lawsuit which names the Wikipedia article as part of the suit.

Lawsuit? Is that beyond a legal threat and into real legal warfare? Should this person stop editing Wikipedia entirely until the lawsuit is over? I know nothing about you or a lawsuit and am not taking sides on any matter, just inquiring.

Chergles (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The full comment is posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stripping pictures from FA. --Elonka 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not named in any lawsuit. Please refactor your comment, Elonka, so as not to confuse other editors. To be very precise, I have opposed somebody's attempt to register "SEO" as a trademark for seach engine optimization services. You can read all about it here and see for yourself how Wikipedia was cited in our filings. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hochman, you should not be working on the Search engine optimization article, ever. You have been showing appalling judgment here, and I've been trying to give you some space, but it's gone too far. It's clear that you specifically modified the article[1] using a forum post as a source, and then you used the Wikipedia article as a source in the trademark dispute (for example, paragraph 5).[2] I know there's a claim that the forum post is from an "industry expert", Danny Sullivan, but he is another associate of yours, and you've worked on his article too. Then Sullivan "invited"[3] Durova to write an article, "SEO Tips & Tricks from a Wikipedia Insider", where she even mentions you in the first paragraph. And I'm not even going to go into the conflict of interest regarding various financial arrangements. In short, neither you nor Durova should be going anywhere near any of the SEO articles, including Search engine optimization, Search engine marketing, Danny Sullivan, etc. It's a clear conflict of interest. If you want to work on other areas of Wikipedia, fine, but don't work on the SEO articles, and you should probably clearly state your potential COI when you participate on talkpages or noticeboard threads. Even better, just steer completely clear of all of them. --Elonka 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunin, I don't think we are going to clear things up here. You are under a lot of misconceptions about financial arrangements, and such. I hope in time that your anger with me will dissipate enough that we can have a civil conversation over tea. I have exchanged maybe fifty words with Danny Sullivan (technologist) over the years. He's extraordinarily busy and knows tons of people. I am hardly his associate. Basically every well-known, professional SEO has spoken at Danny's conferences and written for his publications. If that's your criteria for disqualification, then you are excluding all experts in the field. It would be like me saying you couldn't edit articles about cryptography or Alan Turing. Such a policy would be very bad for Wikipedia. Last week I was rushing out of a panel discussion (which Danny organized), and practically knocked over Jimmy Wales who took my seat for the next panel.[4] If you exclude me, you may as well exclude Jimmy too. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How about taking this up at WP:COIN and get opinions from editors that take much more time understanding what COI is about and how it should be dealt with? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in fairness and kindness but also ethics and analysis. If anyone wants me to try to resolve this issue, I will. Otherwise, I don't seek involvement in it. As said above, the original post were merely an inquiry, not an accusation. I have intentionally not researched the issue to insure impartiality in the future regarding this subject. Chergles (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your note to Jim62sch

For what it's worth, I think your comments to Jim62sch are dead on. I myself had earlier raised a similar concern on his talk page. Wikipedia would be a better place if we had more writers. Thanks, Madman (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, are you referring to this thread?[5] --Elonka 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes'm. Madman (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If it does turn out that further action is needed, then it'll be helpful to have the additional diffs. Hopefully though, Jim will simply take the concerns onboard, and try to modify his editing style a bit. In which case no further action will be necessary! --Elonka 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached?

Over at Muhammad al_Durrah you suggested a name change. A month later, I did a quick count of the views expressed and read it as being "5-0 support, 1 neutral". (I was probably wrong, it's probably only 2 in favour, 3 "likely", one neutral and one unknown). The move has been reverted - is it worth taking it to "Request Move"? (This last is not actually my idea - but I've come to you because I thought you'd be more au fait with all the issues).

Editor	Change Title to "Muhammad al-Durrah affair"?	Comments made
User:Elonka	Likely	... feel free to discuss it here. If other editors agree, we can move the page. But I'd like to ensure that there's a consensus first. 17:36, 18 September 2008
User:PalestineRemembered	Yes	Support re-name 18:30, 18 September 2008
User:6SJ7	Likely	At least at first glance, adding "affair" would seem to be appropriate ... I will reserve my actual opinion pending further discussion. 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
User:IronDuke	Neutral	I could go either way as well, though I do think we have articles on people esentially famous for only one thing, eg, Leo Frank. 19:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Liftarn	Unknown	I wouls support splitting out the conspiracy theories to a separate article and let this article deal with the facts. //
User:Tarc	Yes	Call it the Muhammad al-Durrah affair 16:35, 19 September 2008
User:Jaakobou	Likely	I think I tend to agree about the "affair" spirit for writing the article, but I'm not so certain the move is necessary. 04:48, 22 September 2008

PR^talk 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In a universe of six people (excluding Elonka) out of the thousands of Wikipedia editors, there does not seem to be any strong objection to renaming the article to add the word "affair." Without getting into whether that really adds up to a "consensus", the fact is that on Wikipedia it is probably enough to justify renaming the article. Such renamings sometimes prompt greater attention from those less involved or previously uninvolved, so if someone comes along who wants to move it back or elsewhere, I think it needs to be recognized that there was really no solid consensus here either way. The real issue on the article's talk page seemed to be whether, as part of this renaming, there should be some sort of "split" or "fork" of the article, so I think it must be made clear that there are definite objections to that proposal. I would also strongly suggest that if anybody gets the idea of reworking the first sentence (and elsewhere in the intro) to match the new title, that any changes should be proposed and discussed on the talk page first. I can see all kinds of potential issues with that, and with a 0RR in place (if it still is), it is important that nobody unilaterally change the first sentence. 6SJ7 (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV

Thank you for your fair oversight as usual, Elonka. I'll stay clear of 3RR; you have my word. I'll also be sure to take a look at Michele Renouf's article. Best, Causteau (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please advise

Is this kind of threat an invitation for an indefinite block? I am honestly amazed that this editor persists with this. — TAnthony^Talk 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked all of this from my talk page, but wanted to make sure you saw this last threat before the block. Just so you know, should I receive any more IP vandalism, I don't intend to formally attribute it to Phenom as a gesture of good faith. I believe you can see that for the most part I have been reactionary in this situation and not goaded Phenom (not that that's an excuse for his behavior anyway). Hopefully that will be the end of it. — TAnthony^Talk 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I persist with this because you keep harrasing me. I have been blocked for a week and I sign on for the first time and its a sockpuppet violation from you. It's like you just can't let it go. That's a price you will have to pay then. Keep it up! Phenomenon8980 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Phenom also keeps restoring the thread you asked me to archive. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 19:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And I may also point out that he just violated 3RR by doing it a third time — TAnthony^Talk 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Has everyone read WP:BAIT recently? :) --Elonka 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That article describes TAnthony to a tee. It's funny because he is not even the original person who I had an issue with. I resolved that conflict a long time ago. It' TAnthony's incessant abuse of whatever power he has to make other editor's experience on here miserable. I say he should be the one blocked for goading me into this conflict. And yet he's surprised that I persist? Phenomenon8980 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Phenomenon8980, I've been trying really hard to be patient, but I'm about run dry at this point. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to play these kinds of games. If you'd like to stick around and help out with writing articles, we'd love to have the help. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're just going to be asked to leave. --Elonka 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. Phenomenon8980 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler and beyond

Though I participated in the discussion on tense at Pauline Fowler, I know you were an active part of the FA nom. In that article, the character's storylines are pretty much presented from a real-world perspective in the context their coverage in external sources, with the more in-universe coverage filling it out. That is obviously the ideal approach, but would you say this was a natural choice based on the amount of coverage available on this particular character, or a direct result of suggestions from peer review/article class noms? I'm working on an article with a significant amount of source material and am going in this same direction, but I'm wondering in general if, for characters of slightly less notability, a reasonably-sized section that is essentially only plot summary would hinder the article (assuming there are other sourced sections asserting notability, etc. An example which comes to mind immediately is Alexis Colby in its current state. The article definitely needs work (and of course there are probably plenty of sources to expand the article a la Pauline), but pretending for a moment that is not the case, would the article's current format work? That is, a real-world-based section and a plot section, like you would find for an article about a novel. Or, do you think it would be necessary to weave the two, as in Pauline? I'm not sure how many character articles have made it to FA status. — TAnthony^Talk 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, only one soap character article has ever made it to FA, and that's Pauline Fowler. There are other fictional characters that have made it, and you can find them at WP:FA, for example, in the media section we've got Padmé Amidala, Jack Sparrow, Troy McClure, Bernard Quatermass, Nikki and Paulo, and Khan Noonien Singh, though I seem to remember seeing that one go by recently on ANI, as being in the middle of a dispute of some sort. Last I checked, the whole Manual of Style for fictional topics (not to mention guidelines for notability) were still subject to considerable debate, but you can check WP:FICTION and WP:MOSFICT for the latest. Anyway, you can look at character articles which successfully navigated their way through the FA political hoops, to see if you can glean tips for the Alexis Colby article. I'll add it to my watchlist as well, and see if I can offer any assistance. --Elonka 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the examples, it does seem like the "Appearances" sections in these articles are strictly plot, so that wouldn't be an issue for other articles. I'm actually working on Steven Carrington and haven't gotten into the plot section as yet. There is a lot of press coverage about the character out there because of the whole groundbreaking gay thing ;) — TAnthony^Talk 23:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Search engine optimization article

Elonka, for what it's worth, I watch the SEO article pretty closely and I don't think either Durova or Jehochman have abused it or tried to edit it to their advantage. As for the lawsuit, Jehochman, as well as other SEOs, are suing to stop the U.S. Trademark Office's egregiously absurd grant of a trademark on the letters "SEO" to one of their competitors (who has been indefinitely blocked here.)

I'm not in the SEO business myself; mostly I watch that article because it's a wonderful honeypot for drawing out spammers.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS, I thought your message for Jim62sch was very tactful. I'm sorry he took it wrong.

Thanks, I'm glad that uninvolved folks are keeping an eye on it. And I'm not disagreeing with you about the trademark dispute. Where I have trouble though, is the idea that a Wikipedia editor, an administrator even, edited a Wikipedia article, and then cited the bits of the article that he'd edited, when he was involved in a legal battle, as though the article represented "common knowledge". And further, that while the suit was active, he continued to edit that article, and didn't see anything wrong with it. I think that shows appalling judgment. It's also frustrating to me, because if the situation were reversed (that I had edited an article about the game industry, then cited the bits of the WP article in court documents, and then I continued to edit industry articles on Wikipedia, even while I was involved in a lawsuit which was relying on those articles), well, not that I would ever do such a thing, but if by some chance I did, I think all hell would rain down on my talkpage. So there seems to be a bit of a double standard going on. I still feel strongly that it's a simple matter: If an editor is involved in any kind of a legal action which is using Wikipedia articles as source documents, said editor should not be editing those articles, as that's a pretty clear COI. --Elonka 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. And, yes, all hell would rain down on you, I'm afraid; fair or not, some of us are "Velcro" while there are others that seem to be "Teflon".

I guess I saw that particular litigation as so absurd that in my mind, it "didn't count". Kind of like a flat earth lawsuit.

Bottom line -- you're right and we shouldn't have a double standard, even if in some eyes such as mine, there's not a "real" problem. Appearances matter for admins, since we set an example for others. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of this endless conflict. I have asked Newyorkbrad to mediate.[6] Will you accept his opinion as impartial? Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope!

Sorry, just my ignorance. --Enzuru 06:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, the guy who called me an ismaili vandal in the history constantly follows me (he always gets new IPs) and reverts many edits I make, so, I automatically revert them back. --Enzuru 06:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that guy who follows Enzuru around also follows me. He also calls me ismaili vandal or ismaili vandal's gf, depending if he notices who he's vandalising. His most recent reverts are so automated that he actually reverted something helpfully unintentionally. He's had 5 IPs blocked for log-in accounts only in the last 2 days alone... what a pain he is. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 06:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Is there a list of the IPs anywhere? Has anyone filed a Suspected SockPuppet or Request for CheckUser report? --Elonka 06:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I filed a partial one based on the most recent ones. If you can search edit summaries for "ismaili vandal", you'll get a motherload. Lessee, the one I filed is... [[7]]. But I didn't bother to gather them all. Can you search by edit names? I need to go to bed, but it's basically edits to Shia Islam, Template:Shi'a Islam, Template:Fatimah, Template:Ismaili, and a few others. Template:Twelver Shi'a as well. Okay, so a whole range of Shi'a topics, but those are the most prolific. Some of the 12 Imams were edit-spams, too, as I recall. *sigh* Yeah, so is there any way to summon up "Ismaili vandal"? He used a lot of other rude names (faggot dyke tranny, for one) but those are most reliable. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 06:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the report. As you find other IPs/accounts, they can be added to that page. For now, go ahead and get some sleep.  :) --Elonka 07:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Halp User:84.255.151.196... grr. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Now he's using User:129.250.211.12, an old reliable one for him.

Whoops now on User:129.250.211.10, another old one. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV (2)

It seems that there is POV pushing in opposite directions going on at this article. You responded to the actions of one side in response to WP:AN#Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources, while I (with the typical bias of a German) was more intrigued by the less obvious actions of the other side. Are you watching the article? It would be nice to know there is an experienced admin around. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV and Michele Renouf? Yes, watching 'em both, though more eyes are always helpful. There appears to be some disagreement about the BLP issues at the Renouf article. I'm not familiar with the sources, but am trying to come up to speed. --Elonka 01:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need your input at WP:ANI#User Causteau and The Jerusalem Post.

It seems that User:Causteau thinks I am part of a conspiracy (see User talk:Sina111#Press TV for the details). User:RCS seems to have similarly misguided ideas (although not to the same degree) about Causteau. I think Causteau could do with an explanation, from a trusted admin, of how WP:AGF can be used as an effective tool against real and imagined conspiracies. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you were not aware...

Since you stopped posting to my talk, but things have developed further, I figured I ought to drop you a note that there have been further discussions on AN/I. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka

Thanks for the post on my talk page. Things have moved on beyond that now. See Incidents page under Coal Mining. I think I'm about done. See also my user page.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that helps. I like especially what you did on the Environmental Effects page. But doesn't leave much on the Coal Mining page. Slim pickins there.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to remove material concerning Mathsci's attempts to out me. I'm concerned about the archived Incident report initially filed about the Law article concerning Yannis, in which Mathsci made a couple references correllating my user page description with the author of a book he referred to concerning the Coal Mining article. He made similar references in a message posted to my talk page, which I deleted, but I imagine there is an archive of that also. In addition he attempted to get me to open email communication with him, I think to get me to identify myself. Sigh.

There is so much more I could add, over time, but this is so discouraging. I think I will wait a few days and then close this account. Maybe I'll be back later, but I doubt it. Too much grief. It's like the old saw "no good deed goes unpunished." Life is short, and I don't need the aggravation of cowboy anarchy. Nobody does...Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This just never stops. Have you seen the thread Mathsci on talk page of FT2? Bizarre.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I have not and will not enter my personal email address on my preferences if that is what is required for me to receive email from someone. I can't do that without revealing my identity, and because there are administrators involved in this controversy who may be able to access my preferences page, I don't think that is wise.

Understand nothing I have experienced so far with Yannis or Mathsci or Slrubenstein or KT2 or Jehochman has inspired much confidence in Wikipedia. They all seem more concerned about themselves than about the Wiki harrassment policy. Only Charles Matthews and you seem to take it at all seriously.

I already have multiple email accounts and see no reason to obtain another just for this silliness. If Mathsci wishes to contact me, s/he can do so on my talk page as you have done. If that is not acceptable, then I guess Mathsci doesn't really wish to contact me on any terms but his/her own.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, please look at my talk page and tell me what the address under Message means. Unfamiliar and don't know how to access. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Mellars

Hiya, Elonka. Thanks for joining me in editing Paul Mellars. I managed to find his date of birth on the archives of the British Academy. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ah, you're welcome, but I won't be sticking around. That was just some drive-by categorizing, as I do to many other articles that I run across via Special:Random. Have fun with it though. --Elonka 00:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

Hey. I have (FINALLY) closed the RfC, and posted my conclusion inside it. Hopefully it's satisfactory, it was really hard to close this. Wizardman 04:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, Elonka. Not to keep lengthening the everlasting thread on Lar's page, I feel I should reply here that you're quite right: Rm994 didn't post to ANI. It was most likely at your page that I saw the user's call for help against an aggressive editor who kept blanking their page. Not that I was consciously watching your page, but I had lazily let it remain on my watchlist after I'd posted there before. ("Monitor" your page, as you call it, is not something I've ever done. Seriously, what for?) I'm sorry I misspoke about it. I can't remember, or even imagine, why I went look up that particular post on your page when it appeared on my watchlist—it's downright odd, to my sense, since it certainly didn't have a striking edit summary (it had none) or anything, and to the best of my knowledge I'd never heard of Rm994. Anyway, I was obviously mixed up when I wrote about it on Lar's page, and I apologize for my error. When something that long ago was in question, I should have checked before saying anything at all, however clearly I thought I remembered it, and I appreciate your setting me right. That said, I still stand by my other remarks on Lar's page, I'm afraid. As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't the one who "jumped into the middle of a discussion", you were (which was fine). You offered rather superior and as I thought them (and, I'm afraid, still think them) priggish references to well-known policies to Risker and myself, who are pretty experienced admins (which was less fine, in my opinion). Anyway, I'm very sorry I misremembered about where I saw Rm994's sad plaint. You'll be pleased to hear that I've finally remembered to "unwatch" your page. I do try to keep my watchlist trimmed down to pages I'm actually interested in, as it's much more effective that way. But it's a bit of an eternal struggle between chaos and laziness. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Returning Vandal

Hi, Ok, I will post elsewhere from now. But the new incarnation of the same vandal is User talk:Maryland's isn't Disneyland and he is still vandalizing several user pages. Please look at his edit history. I have started writing a paper about him: User:History2007/Content protection. Everytime he vandalizes, I write more on that article.... Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's not vandalizing anymore. He was blocked on October 19, indefinitely.[8] You won't be seeing that account again. If you do see him pop up on any different accounts, please let me or another administrator know, as quickly as possible. WP:ANI is a good place to post to get rapid attention. --Elonka 20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - yes he is blocked. I was looking on his talk page, not user page. But he will be back. The poor fellow has some sort of obsessive psych problem that needs professional help. I think he was also EurovisionMan and was vandalizing other topics and was blocked. Also vandalizes Lithuanian Wikipedia, and has a chess obsession too I hear. Anyway, Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Will keep an eye out. BTW, as a word of advice, please be careful about how you refer to editors. Even when dealing with vandals, it's not a good idea to make pronouncements about their presumed mental state. It's fine to point out the actions of an account, but for best results, try to avoid expressing opinions about the person behind the keyboard. WP:NPA and WP:ATP are also worth reading. --Elonka 21:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the academic papers link you provided was interesting - I had no idea it was there. I will read some of those and then work more on the issue of consistency between Rivers in Europe vs Rivers in Germany type feature that I was thinking about. That is a feature I would really like to see in Wikipedia as well, and would make image searches much more flexible as well. So some good came out of that page block after all! Cheers History2007 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Vanish

Hiya, Elonka.

Please could you make my account vanish. I no longer wish to contribute to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first read WP:VANISH. Then any of your userpages which you wish deleted, tag with {{db-user}}. Your account name can also be changed, to something different like "Vanish1234" if you want. You'd file a request for that at WP:RENAME. --Elonka 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, DIY? Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

o noes

this comment [9] is in no way a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. please read over them policies to better familiarize yourself wit' 'em. by the way, "trolling" really isn't the word for that either, as at that point I was actually taking the effort to try and be civil with people who were obviously just looking to get me banned for disagreeing with them from the start. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV again

Hi Elonka. The Press TV situation I told you about earlier has since gotten out of hand. Two of its prime "participants" (though I'm not sure if that's the word) have reported me personally and not my edits over at AN/I. What's most amusing is that one of them has also brought up the conflicts from months ago that I was involved in and which you moderated over at the Al-Azhar University page and with Andrew at E1b1b as an attempt to gain some sort of leverage. I've laid out the situation in its entirety here, with some important links (such as this discussion I had with another administrator earlier) that I think you should read first. Please drop by and let folks know what really happened from someone who is actually in a position to have all the facts. Best, Causteau (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance

I just got another personal attack via IP here; I'm not sure if I am supposed to report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or if there's a more specific place? I suppose it's classified as vandalism, right? Thx. — TAnthony^Talk 01:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. And I'm contacting folks off-wiki to see if there's further action that can be taken. Enough is enough. --Elonka 01:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you'd like to followup, it's looking like the (exposed) IPs are coming from Florida, so you could contact the ISPs and file a complaint. Many ISPs, if you can show them that someone is using their system to make these kinds of attacks, will yank the account access. To see the ISP, go to the anons' talkpages, and click on the "WHOIS" link at the bottom. Then you can go to those ISP pages, and look for a "report abuse" or "contact us" link. These might be places to start:[10][11] Give them diffs to the worst of the attacks. If this guy is a student at the University of Florida, it might even get him kicked out of the school. --Elonka 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, for the IP block, advice and (I assume) the CheckUser report ... I've submitted diffs to the ISP. The U of S Florida IPs were used for the suspected sockpuppet reverts and such, not really report-worthy. — TAnthony^Talk 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If they want further information, the CheckUsers can probably provide additional IP/computer information to law enforcement, though it would probably need to go through the Wikimedia legal counsel, Mike Godwin. Keep me posted if you have any other questions! --Elonka 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagz' talk page

You have my word that I will not be posting to it directly, but I would like to reserve the right to bring to the attention of admins postings that violate Wiki policies, although as I said, I won't edit directly on that page anymore. Good enough?--Ramdrake (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, yes.  :) Thanks, Elonka 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I was about a second away from just protecting Jagz' talk page and being done with it, when I first saw his comments there - he's wasted more than enough editorial time and energy. He's indefinitely blocked and got caught using a sock to evade his block and carry on his old grudges, after first denying it all. His unblock request has apparently been declined by ArbCom. He doesn't own his userpage - being allowed to edit there is a courtesy should he wish to give some indication he wants to edit constructively. Using his talkpage to attack another editor is an abuse. I haven't protected it because you've asked him to stand down and I'll wait to see if he does, but any further abuse of his talkpage and I think we've given him 10x more than enough rope. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that he's written an FA in the past, I'd probably agree with you. And I know that you and I have very different perceptions of the situation, but I still have a few dregs left in my Barrel o' Good Faith, that he's a good editor who just got tipped over the edge by attacks from all sides. As I've scanned through the history at Talk:Race and intelligence, over and over again I see what appear to be good faith comments by Jagz, which were responded to over and over by people calling him a troll. I lost track of the number of times that I saw Slrubenstein say DNFTT in response to anything that Jagz posted. Frankly, if I were trying to participate in discussions at a controversial article, and I repeatedly had people referring to me as a troll, I'd probably get testy too. For example, try to read this thread with a different perspective.[12] Don't start with, "Oh, there's Jagz again", try and mentally remove his name and insert someone else's that you respect (SandyGeorgia?). What I see is someone who kept trying to make good edits, then kept being attacked as a troll, and then when he responded even once with incivility, the attacks just increased. And then when he got indef blocked for "trolling", that pushed him further over the edge, and he finally started acting in the way that everyone was expecting him to act (which he saw as making a point, and they saw as just proving their own point). So I'd really like to see if we could just get everyone to go back to their corners and stop poking each other with pitchforks, and we might be able to salvage some good editors out of this? --Elonka 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Private

I do not wish the link to be clickable for obvious reasons. Kindly respect my wishes. You may give another explanation below which does not contain the link directly. Please try to act a little more thoughtfully in future. Mathsci (talk)

Mathsci, frankly this is getting a bit silly. You posted the link, the editor didn't know what to do with it and Elonka assisted him only after he asked her to do so. If you do not want the link to be public, don't post it - whether or not its clickable makes little to no difference. Shell ^babelfish 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, your being unhelpful, please stop. You have made false statements in the past in a failed attempt trying to support Elonka's position. QuackGuru 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you have any problems with my past or current comments regarding yourself or your behavior, I would be happy to discuss the situation with you or engage in dispute resolution. Please do not insert these issues into other topics. Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)