Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 5 August 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is Elonka's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 7 days

al-Durrah

Elonka, ChrisO at the talk page is threatening a major overhaul of the al-Durrah page. Can he just do a major rewrite like that? I, and others, have been working hard at improving the article a little at a time. The idea that he can rewrite the whole thing according to his view and without collaborating is ...well... frightening... ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, he sure can. Then again, anyone else can do it too. So just because he (or anyone else) rewrites it, doesn't mean it's in stone, it's still going to be going through the filters of multiple other editors reviewing and changing things, towards finding neutrality. And nothing is being completely wiped out by his changes... All the old text is still available in history, so if anyone really liked an old section, they can pull it out, and rework it to see if it fits better in the newer version, and so forth.

In general, article expansion is good. If ChrisO is on a major expansion drive, there are different ways that you can handle it... One is to make tweaks as he's working, and another is to sit back and wait for a few days until he runs out of steam (no one can keep up that level of expansion work forever), and then move in and see how you like the new version and if any changes are needed. Or find some level in between. Remember, there is no deadline, we can take our time while working on an article. And since he is not allowed to remove sources, the core foundation of the article will still be there. If it turns out that he's deleting all information from certain sources, then a course correction might be needed, but my guess is that he won't do that. In my opinion, ChrisO is working in good faith, and genuinely wants to provide a high quality article. There is just disagreement between editors on what "high quality" means, which is why we need the tweaks here and there. So carry on, you've been doing a good job in helping to keep the article neutral, and trying to find compromise wording. As long as everyone continues working in good faith, towards the same goal of "high quality article in adherence with policies, and which reflects positively on Misplaced Pages", then progress is being made. :) --Elonka 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I tend to specialise in rewriting contentious articles, often ones which have been the subject of edit wars in the past. Two examples I'd point to are Battle of Vukovar and Borovo Selo killings, both of which were the subject of edit wars between Serbs and Croats before I rewrote them. My rewrite of Kosovo War four years ago is still largely extant - I was elected an administrator on the basis of that and similar work, so I have a long-standing track record in that field (as my string of FAs, GAs and DYKs will indicate).

As for removing sources, I can't guarantee not to do that, since I consciously try to use high-quality mainstream sources in preference to fringe or otherwise less reputable sources. What I try to do, however, is to ensure that the point on which the source is being cited is preserved, while citing it using a more reliable source. So if I see something sourced to what I see as a questionable source (e.g. a personal website or fringe publication), I try to find a higher-quality source such as a mainstream publication that makes the same point. If I remember rightly, I've already done this in a few places in the article. I find that this helps in avoiding arguments about whether this website or that one is a reliable source - if we use only sources that every reasonable person can agree is reliable, a major area of contention is dealt with from the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, this dif is a wholesale revert of a sourced text. The reasoning behind the edit summary is faulty. In fact, the initial testimony is only the Charles Enderlin report and possibly the affidavit. Anything else that is clarified down the road is not 'initial' testimony. For clarity it is important not to leave the reader with the impression that the initial testimony is the final word on the matter, particularly if there is evidence that it has been revoked. Furthermore, in an edit further down the page someone uses an interview from 8 months later and includes it in this section. This section does not adhere to its own rules but only imposes them on some people. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a reversion. I've taken out some repeated detail (there's no need to add dates when they make no material difference to the narrative and already appear in the references). I've reworded part of a couple of paragraphs to more clearly attribute the statements to Abu Rahma, as Tundrabuggy evidently wishes. I'll try to work Juffa's non-contemporaneous claim (which I've not seen in any other source - I'll have to look into this) into the "Main issues" section in the final third of the article. I've also explained the reasoning and the overall strategic plan behind the rewrite on the article talk page, at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#The Incident as initially reported. I'm basically just doing what I've explained above - taking a jumbled, fragmented article that's been hacked about over the years and rebuilding it in a coherent, consistent format. I would ask both of you to have a little patience and wait for me to finish that last section of the article so that you can see how the whole thing works as a single coherent entity. It should only take a few more days. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:Fowler&fowler and User:Mathsci

Hi Elonka, I'm writing to you because you left a welcome message on my talk page and because you visited the Atiyah talk page to view the controversy there. As you, and another administrator User:CBM pointed out, we can only discuss the verifiability of the sources involved here. However, User:Fowler&fowler has repeatedly used ad-hominem attacks amounting to deliberate defamation. For example, on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, where I started a discussion on whether a petition by eminent academics counts as a source, F&f contributed the following: " ... scientist, C. K. Raju, of unremarkable achievement, who is looking, by hook or by crook, to get some publicity" and then again, "unremarkable scientist with grandiosity inversely proportional to achievement". If you look through the talk page, you will see that F&f has continued to make slanderous, and demonstrably factually incorrect, statements of this form not only against Prof. Raju but also against other living people. For example, on the talk page, F&f claims: "All Raju has (if he has them) is a bunch of historians who couldn't integrate sec3(x) to save their lives.".

What recourse do we have? Can we delete these comments since they are not pertinent to the discussion of the controversy? Since Misplaced Pages is so careful about what to include and what not to include in a BLP, why are statements of this sort allowed to stand?

User:Mathsci has alleged at the RS noticeboard that I am a "sockpuppet of currently blocked User:Bharatveer." This is, evidently, an attempt to distract attention from the topic by attacking me rather than my argument. (For the record, MathSci's argument is that I am a `sockpuppet' because I am aware of the restrictions imposed on Bharatveer which is suspicious since I'm a newbie. However, these restrictions are publicly visible on Bharatveer's talk page!) Similarly, on the BLP noticeboard, Mathsci has similarly tried to allege some association between me and Bharatveer. I dont know if you have access to IP addresses, but if you do, you can easily check that this is false! At another time, Mathsci threatened a user with a ban because of the use of the word 'Eurocentric'. MathSci promptly followed this up by branding me and other users, `Indian extremists'.

What recourse do we have. I am perfectly willing to accept a decision that this controversy cannot be included on the page, particularly if other neutral editors and users on the BLP and RS noticeboards feel so. However, I feel that F&f and MathSci are preventing an honest discussion by attacking me and using poorly sourced ad hominem arguments against Raju.

I feel that an intervention by an administrator in the two noticeboards will help. Furthermore, I feel that User:Fowler&fowler should be held to account for repeatedly making slanderous statements and restrained from doing so in the future. Thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. User:Bharatveer is currently blocked for his unexplained use of VPN. There has been a discussion on Wikiproject Mathematics on him and his felllow editors determined to introduce an attack section into Atiyah's BLP (and elsewhere) without reliable sources. At this stage it might be appropriate to put out a checkuser on the SPA's User:Perusnarpk and User:Abhimars. Many other editors and administrators are following the disruptive actions of these tiresome troublemakers, including User:Nishkid64, User:David Eppstein, User:CBM, User:Charles Matthews, User:JackSchmidt and User:R.e.b.. Most of Perusnarpk arguments above - without diffs - are inaccurate. It has taken him at least two days to explain his almost immediate familiarity with the ArbCom editing restrictions on User:Bharatveer. Perhaps he might explain why he is only here on WP to insert this attack material? Most wikipedia editors, and certainly me, spend most of their time adding encyclopedic content to wikipedia. Has he ever thought of doing that? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, this user has started forum shopping. Because I advised User:Abhimars against using the extremist phrases "eurocentic" and "exposing western idols", he has reported me on the wikiquette noticeboard. Can this tiresomely disruptive SPA really be a recent arrival? I am too busy editing Differential geometry of surfaces to follow him around. Sorry, Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein and Nishkid64 have now advised this editor on WP:BLP policy, so hopefully this problem should now have ended. Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)a

Mathsci, I feel that your post above typifies the consistent misrepresentation that you have carried out on the talk pages. You say that "I advised User:Abhimars against using the extremist phrases "eurocentic" and "exposing western idols", he has reported me on the wikiquette noticeboard." My Wikiquette posting is available here and my complaint is on the use of your phrase: "... a number of Indian extremists have tried to disrupt this page". This was not about your comment to Abhimars.

As you confirmed to me, your comment about Indian extremists was directed at me as well as at Abhimars. This evidently constitutes what, in Misplaced Pages's own terminology is an "ethnic epithet". I would like to hear either a justification for this phrase, how you came to the conlusion that I was 'Indian', or why the phrase 'Indian' nationalist was relevant in this discussion. thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perusnarpk, please stop trying to escalate things on wikipedia, as this is not a great idea. You seem to be in conflict at the moment with Nishkid64, Slrubenstein and Jehochman, all administrators, as well as most mathematics editors (including people far more eminent than anybody on your petition). Please take a deep breath, step back and calm yourself. Why not try editing a mainspace article, like lesser spotted dogfish, to find out what the wikipedia community is really about? Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Have a good day. Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not in conflict with anyone. To the contrary, I would like to point out that the consensus on the wikiquette page was that you had exceeded the bounds of civility. I hope this will not repeat. I am perfectly willing to have a civil discussion which I hope to continue on the article talk page. Perusnarpk (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(noindent) On the contrary you are in conflict with most of the wikipedia community, unless you now have dropped the idea of inserting this libelous material into a mainspace article in gross violation of the BLP policies of this encyclopedia. I looked carefully at the diffs for the talk page of Atiyah and note that, far from distancing yourself, you seemed to be in agreement with the extremist remarks of both Abhimars and the anonymous IP 67.169.0.250 (who received a warning from Elonka for inserting the attack material in Michael Atiyah, after I removed it). Please refer to the wikiquette page for more details. Your familiarity with the various noticeboards and the internal workings of wikipedia (your current RfC against Fowler&fowler) for example) is still somewhat worrying. You are skating on very thin ice at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah again

Not remotely acceptable, Elonka. I've fully explained my edits, I've said that I will review and verify the content in question before working it into another part of the article (as with the paragraph we discussed the other day), and your aggressive response is unwarranted. I am not going to move information around the article without first checking it out - that's how I found the problem with Tundrabuggy's addition of the presentation. I invite you to reconsider. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, you do not own the article. Please, I think it's time to re-read WP:OWN. You do not have the right to remove sources until you personally review them and decide how to incorporate them into the article. You have already been banned from the article in the past, so continuing to disregard the conditions for editing was unwise. My recommendation to you at this point is either just take a break from the article for awhile, or, if you wish, continue participating at talk, and at the mediation. You also have the option of creating a draft version of the article in a subpage of your userspace, where you can write the article in anyway that you choose. But for the next month, please avoid editing the live article. Thanks, --Elonka 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Elonka, I do not regard this as acceptable. Your mismanagement of this, and I have reason to believe, other articles, is a sign of a systematic problem with your approach to administrative work. I will be taking further steps to address this - not at WP:AE, as this has gone beyond that point. I will notify you soon of the relevant page so that you may respond to the community's concerns. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision

Given that your actions were referred to in this edit, I'd appreciate a clarification or a comment from you if possible. Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have had no response to my recent offer of a possible "olive branch" solution. Consequently I am afraid I am left with no choice but to formalise a request for comment on your recent actions and similar issues concerning other articles. You may see the RfC and respond to it at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you receive my email? --Elonka 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you receive mine? :-) I'm not sure if you've not replied because you've not received it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The last email I received from you, was where you were hinting about de-sysopping me. And I did reply to that. BTW, for a User Conduct RfC to stick, it needs to be certified by two users who tried to resolve the same issue. So, who exactly is going to certify this? To my knowledge, the only person who was concerned about the restriction that I placed on you, was you. No one else has expressed any issues with the ban. --Elonka 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not the ban, it's your general judgment concerning that and other articles - hence the citation of several actions, not just the immediate issue of the ban. As I said in the RfC, multiple editors and admins have expressed concerns about your actions across multiple articles. As for the e-mail, I certainly haven't hinted about de-sysopping you - I said that I was aware that some people were suggesting that you be desysopped and explicitly said that I did not support such a course of action. If I did, I would have triggered a recall, not an RfC. Finally, you might want to have a look at the very informative comments left by JackSchmidt on my talk page . Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of his comments, especially that you are more interested with content, and I am more interested with conduct. Which is as it should be. For example, if anyone files a case at ArbCom to decide on content, they will quickly find out that ArbCom does not issue rulings on content, they only issue rulings on user conduct. The conduct rules that are in place at Muhammad al-Durrah are simple: Be civil, don't delete citations to reliable sources, don't undo/rollback other editors, but you are allowed to change their work. Within those rules, you can do pretty much anything you want. If you see someone adding a large section which you feel violates WP:UNDUE, then edit it down to a single sentence (but keep the citations intact!). If you see someone add information from a reliable source, which does not accurately portray what is in the source, then do change the text so it reflects what is in the source. But don't just delete the entire section as "wrong". If you feel that the article is not in accordance with WP:NPOV, do change it! But don't attack other editors and say, "you adding something non-neutral, I am now going to harass you off Misplaced Pages." If a new editor makes a mistake, well, that's what new editors do! In those cases, we correct their work, we mentor them on how to do better. We don't stamp a big red "TROLL" word on their forehead and toss them onto the scrap heap. On Misplaced Pages we start by assuming good faith, we mentor new users, we treat people (even vandals) with civility. Bottom line: If you can stay civil, avoid deleting citations to reliable sources, and concentrate on changing other people's work instead of just deleting it, you're not going to get banned. In that case, feel free to edit up a storm. --Elonka 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and for a definition on what the word "troll" really means, check here: --Elonka 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't think your response to the RfC does you much credit. However, I hope you will take the responsible course of considering the feedback you received and acting upon it in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I know that you can see the deleted page with your admin access... Are you taking anything away from this? Sure, some of the people that I have cautioned, banned, and blocked, were in there agreeing with you. But there were also many criticisms of your actions (and endorsements of mine) by uninvolved editors and administrators. Did you hear what they were saying? What did you learn? Are you planning on modifying your behavior accordingly, per the will of the community?

In the meantime, you are still welcome to participate at the talkpage of Muhammad al-Durrah, you are still welcome to work on a rewrite of the article in your userspace, and you will be able to return to editing the live article at the end of the month. As long as you stay in accordance with the conditions for editing, I think everything will go smoothly, and you will be able to rewrite the article as much as you want. --Elonka 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lynch mob

I would like you to give a vary careful explanation with diffs of your reason for using this epithet on Cailil's RfA , repeated on Moreschi's talk page. Elonka you must realize that these are extremely serious allegations that you have made. Since your close wiki friend Shell Kinney seemed to be in complete agreement with you on ANI, perhaps she too would like to provide recent diffs to support this allegation. Perhaps what you both wrote was in fact just a careless error. If that is the case, can you please both be more careful in the future, as you are both likely to cause needless offence to many editors and administrators of long standing. Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, you have already been cautioned about personal attacks, aggressive behavior, and this ongoing grudge that you seem to have against me. You have even been blocked for harassment. As for what you are asking about, as I am sure you know, I have posted extensive diffs, at multiple talkpages about my concerns. There are multiple replies at your talkpage, at Cailil's talkpage, at Moreschi's talkpage, and others. Please, at some point you just have to let this go. --Elonka 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka: please explain what you mean by "lynch mob". As far as I am aware, I did not ask you to try to carry out a character assassination on me. In fact I think my currrent mainspace editing record is considerably better than yours, for what it's worth. Even in administrative matters, you did little to help with the problems on Michael Atiyah's BLP. The meatpuppet whom you failed to caution is now indefinitely banned. I contacted FT2, Nishkid64, Slrubenstein, Jehochman and Charles Matthews (a former colleague), and bit by bit the problem was resolved.

Please explain what you meant by "lynch mob". It is extremely offensive and you should be more careful about using such language on this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW diffs for one day on which you failed to recognize Koalorka's history of systematic anti-Turkish POV-pushing and when your friends Shell and WjBscribe cornered me on my talk page, possibly summoned there by you, are not really representative. Please find some other days and some other diffs. You're really clutching at straws, Elonka. Here on WP editors are generally judged by the quality of their edits. Mathsci (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bye

As far as I'm concerned Misplaced Pages is just an excuse for some to rewrite history. GIGO--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You should waive certification of the RFC.

Elonka, as I think you know I'm utterly uninvolved in any side of this dispute. It seems to me that a number of admins are concerned that the RFC has been deleted. Fundamentally, it's an RFC. It's presence does not harm anyone or anything. I'd therefore like to ask you, formally, to waive the certification requirements so the RFC can be un-deleted and proceed. That seems, to me, to be the way forward with the least amount of drama. Your thoughts? Nandesuka (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at the talkpage. Though be aware that a few of the admins and other editors who are expressing concerns, are definitely not uninvolved. If you check talkpage history, you may even see warnings for harassment. I'd say that the majority of the people participating at the RfC, were involved in various disputes, and the polarized camps were showing up pretty clearly. There were definitely a few thoughtful and uninvolved opinions, and I listened carefully to them (and to the other comments). But I stand by my assertion that if someone has trouble with my admin actions (or anything I do), that per WP:DR, the first thing to try is to talk to the person involved, and genuinely try to work things out. If talking in good faith, truly does not bring about any resolution, then an RfC may be an option. But steps need to be followed in order. --Elonka 17:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's best for you to undelete this, quickly and easily. Will you do it? I don't see how dragging out the deletion review is helpful, and if it's you who overturns it, I can't see how anyone could complain. Friday (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my comments at the talkpage. When an admin takes an action that someone disagrees with, the first recourse, per WP:DR, is for people to talk to the admin, not to forum-shop. Even now, no one, not a single person, has posted to my talkpage with any good-faith concerns about whether or not ChrisO should have been banned. Except of course for ChrisO. The point of an RfC is to address a dispute when other methods have not worked. But the other methods have not even been tried. ArbCom has tasked me, and other members of the Working group, with analyzing dispute resolution procedures. One of the things that I stand behind, is that the first course of action is to try talking, not to jump to a conduct RfC. --Elonka 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand why ArbCom members are jumping out of the woodwork to defend you. If your actions are questioned it could make their judgment look questionable and put that initiative at risk. Listen, I don't want to cause that problem. Why don't we consider this RFC, which seems likely to be resurrected at deletion review, as a podium from which you can inform people about these initiatives? I bet if you provide a better explanation of what you are doing and why, you can build a lot of support. Maybe the reason people are opposing you is that you are doing something new and bold. They just don't get it yet, but they could if you take the time to explain all the thought that has gone into this.

One additional very important thing: you must extraordinarily careful when conducting experiments on human beings. It is not fair to ChrisO, who had a certain set of expectations, to suddenly be struck with a new regime of article editing conditions that few of us have ever seen before. People have feelings which count for something. Jehochman 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that communication is important. And I feel that I went to extraordinary lengths to communicate the new expectations to him. I gave him many many many warnings, graduating from explanations, to gentle nudges, to multiple "last chances". Feel free to review the history of his talkpage. Ultimately, he was still being uncivil, he was still deleting citations to reliable sources, and he was still reverting other editors, rather than trying to change their work. And of most concern, he openly admitted that he was going to keep right on doing more of the same, and that he was going to do it "as an admin". Trust me, I didn't want to ban him. But I did insist that the editors there at that page had to stay civil, had to avoid reverts, and had to avoid deleting citations. Do you feel that those conditions were unreasonable? --Elonka 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've explained it to me, it sounds like you did the right thing. If you run into a situation like that again, feel free to ask me for a second opinion. I am keenly interested in such problems. Jehochman 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, she didn't, and it's sad that she's resorting to such blatant misrepresentations to bolster her already weak case. Case in point: the claim above that I "openly admitted that he was going to keep right on doing more of the same". Take a look at what I actually wrote here. Do you think that sounds like disruptive conduct? The ironic thing is that I made a point of explaining what I was doing and why, in advance, so that Elonka wouldn't misunderstand. But as this RfC has shown, she simply doesn't listen and hears only what she wants to hear, like the Far Side cartoon. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there was a depth of warnings issued, and that Elonka may have been losing patience. What was probably needed was a breadth of warnings. Getting a few editors/administrators to review the situation and having each provide feedback to ChrisO might have helped avoid the need for sanctions. Misplaced Pages has unwritten social rules. It is highly undesirable to block or sanction another administrator. I personally would never do it without doing a sanity check with two or three uninvolved administrators. ChrisO, it would be really nice if you turned down the heat on Elonka. Elonka, it would be great if you discussed those editing conditions with ChrisO, Ned Scott and other interested parties to help refine them. That discussion could be part of the RFC, or elsewhere. Jehochman 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, did you read ChrisO's appeal, which was rejected by ArbCom? Multiple statements from editors and admins, as well as arbitrators, that the ban was appropriate. How much more "breadth" of warnings is reasonable? --Elonka 21:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good feedback, but it would be optimal for him to hear that prior to the ban, rather than during an appeal. Jehochman 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of original timing, the feedback and multiple statements were still there for his review. But then when his ban was up, he came back to the Muhammad al-Durrah article, and was disruptive again, leading to a second ban. So I think the "communication" requirement has been well met at this point. But ChrisO still is not hearing what the community is saying, and he is still forum-shopping. --Elonka 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly took away the lesson that I needed to communicate better, which was exactly the point of explaining in advance to you what I was doing so that you wouldn't misunderstand. (I evidently hadn't counted on wilful misunderstanding.) Bear in mind that communication has to go both ways: it's no good me communicating if you don't listen. A example: in your ban message on my talk page, you referred to "your comments that you are planning to further ignore the conditions and continue to remove other sources". But I had said nothing of the sort. I very specifically stated that I was reviewing and replacing unreliable sources, exactly as WP:V requires. This also shows the other problem here - you've completely failed/refused to recognize that there might be any need to replace or remove sources. An editing rule that forces editors to do nothing about unreliable sources totally contradicts policy. WP:V doesn't have an "Elonka exception". That's what I meant by you prioritizing your restrictions above fundamental policies.

Jehochman, right now the heat isn't coming from me, it's coming from the community. Trying to get the RfC deleted on a disputed technicality was probably the worst possible thing Elonka could have done. The best possible thing to do right now would be to work towards some sort of compromise and, you know, actually deal with the issues. I've always been open to that and I want to get on with it, not spend time arguing over semantics. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The conditions for editing already provide a mechanism for removing sources: Tag them as potentially unreliable, and bring them up at the talkpage. If there is consensus for their removal, it is simple to proceed. But it is not acceptable for one editor to arbitrarily say, "I don't like that source," and then remove it. Even if they are operating in good faith, it's still disruptive, because it comes down to one editor saying, "I think this is a good source," and another editor saying, "No, that's not a good source." So the way to deal with those disagreements is through identification and talkpage discussion, not through edit-warring. --Elonka 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Society Barnstar, Congrats

		Society Barnstar
		For mediating and seeing through to the end issues regarding George Thomas Coker, I salute and thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)