Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 20 February 2009

Elonka is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Recurring Vandalism, Deletion, Misinformation of Jeff Halevy

Jeff Halevy is being repeatedly vandalized by "anonymous" users and fictitious accounts Veloscity and Borisvladim. Can you please lock the page or something? Thx.

96.246.71.120 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FURTHER the IP address 72.43.101.29, traced to John Sitaras, is vandalizing this page again. Can you please help?

chad_hermanson (talk)

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 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Elonka...can you please take care of this guy?

User Hubschrauber729 has been vandalizing pages "Marko Marin", "Neven Subotic" and "Nikola Saric".

Can you please take care of this guy?

I put the "cities they were born in," "SR Bosnia and Herzegovina," "SFR Yugoslavia" but he keeps deleting the modified pages. Please ban him or tell him to stop vandalizing pages.

escalating problems

Israel Shahak Please take a look - the situation looks like it's getting quite ugly. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That article urgently needs administrative action against those who shovel in non-RS material, some of it really unpleasant. Paul Bogdanor (amongst other lots of other abuses) defends a man who gave false witness for Becher, a Nazi jew-killer, at the Nuremberg Trials. There is no way we should be using Bogdanor as a source in this article - and yet, attempts to point this out are met with threats, deletions on TalkPages and worthless appeals to non-relevant policy. We need the gross abuses dealt with first. PR 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

In a spirit of raising the tone of the wiki, because I fee bad about it, and because it isn't true, I'm sorry for comparing you to the HR department on my talk page the other day. I was annoyed with some other people and chose to take it out on you, unfairly and inaccurately. I hope you can overlook it. Tom Harrison 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I took no offense! But thanks anyway.  :) I would still very much like your input though on improving the AE process. I see that you've been participating at the AE RfC, which is good, but I'd still like a bit more. I've been pondering ideas for a proposal about an "AE training" system of some sort, but haven't quite got the wording worked out. Would you be interested in helping me brainstorm it at all? --Elonka 18:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re my proposal

Hey, it doesn't look like the format at the page allows for responses or counter-proposals so I have to track you down here. I agree it would be problematic if there are more jerks on one side of a POV (to put it in layperson's terms :-)). A solution might be that admins make sure that they have the same action-taking ratio as other admins. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that if ten admins are managing a dispute, and the "average" ratio is 20% sanctions on "side A" and 80% on side B, but then one admin is issuing 50% on side A and 50% on side B, that it might indicate bias on the part of the new admin? --Elonka 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not comfortable assigning numerical values like that. For example, if we're going with the assumption that some admins are biased, then we could equally assume that the "majority" admins already on the scene were implementing sanctions in a biased way, but the "new" admin in the minority, was the one being unbiased. So I don't feel a strict numeric ratio system would be useful. It's still a case of making qualitative judgment calls, rather than trying to meet a quota like, "Alright, I've issued three warnings to one side in this dispute, so I can't issue anymore until I've issued three to the other side, too." It would only work if everyone in the dispute was being equally disruptive, in a homogeneous kind of way, but disputes tend not to work like that. In my experience, most disputes (that I've dealt with), boil down to 1-6 entrenched users who have their heels dug in on a position, aren't budging, are attacking anyone who disagrees with them, and who are calling in their friends to support their position, even if the friends aren't doing anything other than reverting in support of their ally. So in my experience, once the core leaders have been identified, it's usually a matter of giving them clear warnings about their behavior, and then if they still refuse to modify their approach, to simply remove them from the equation. Once they're off the article (and sometimes talkpage), the other editors who are working on the article are usually able to proceed with consensus-building and cleanup. As one particular success story, I'm thinking of one article which had been in dispute for a long time, where (once I'd identified the core of the dispute) all I had to do was ban one editor from the article for one week, and the entire article stabilized very rapidly, and no further action was ever required. Of course, the one editor that I banned (and some of his associates) immediately attacked me, started administrator board threads, charged me with bias, etc., etc. But the thing is, the one surgical ban did the trick.  ;) --Elonka 22:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone thinks that all admins are out to get him he might as well close up shop. However, there's another problem that I overlooked with regard to assigning a numeric ratio system. It will create all kinds of derogatory and stereotypical ugliness. Just imagine if there's an official stat out there that one religious/ethnic group is more prone to edit-warring and incivility then its counterpart.

This is why we should just have a policy that admins should keep an equal balance of action-taking against either side of a POV. Some groups are worse then others and deserve more sanctions, but in my experience, entrenchment and incivility on one side breeds the same on the other side, so eventually it all evens out. But what's most important is that we have some sort of scheme in place that would inhibit an admin to continue placing sanctions on one side while claiming to be neutral. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that the correct forum for this discussion was the Project's talk page so I copy and pasted the discussion there, in case you want to respond.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That blasted Nishidani's edit-warring

Elonka. Could you do me the courtesy of glancing at the Israel Shahak page shortly? I have been warned I am edit-warring, by NoCal, and that he is minded to call for an administrative rebuke if I persist. I don't know how he defines 'edit-warring', and have asked him to present the evidence immediately, so that you may make a call on his charge. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew

Elonka, as bizarre as it may seem, the Self-hating Jew article has become an Israel/Palestine battleground article. Would it be possible for you make your presence known, to lessen the possibility of another edit war there. I got burned over that previously, and a more orderly situation would be a help. I just had a sourced edit reverted, and I would like to avoid previous problems. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A thread which may concern you has been started here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin abuse of tools. best, –xeno (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Meteormaker's editing

Hi Elonka. I discovered that Meteormaker has again removed the term from the Israeli settlement article, despite the previous agreement. He's also been edit-warring over the term on a number of other articles (e.g. ,, ). I've restored it as cited fact, per previous discussions, but I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on this, as I suspect he'll try to edit-war it out again. Thanks. Jayjg 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to Jayjg's recollection, there was never an agreement not to remove the term "Samaria" from the article. What he's probably thinking of is this restriction, imposed by Elonka on 25 December 2008: "No more Samaria-related reverts in the lead of the article". If I'm eligible for a 90-day ban after reverting a (non-lead but Samaria-related) edit, logically Jayjg should be banned too, since he reverted the exact same text two days earlier. Else, I must say I see double standards at work here. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, I also note that the ban is based on the misconception that I have removed sources. I did not remove Jayjg's (cherry-picked) cites, I merely moved them to the proper place in the article, the part that actually discusses the usage of the name "Samaria". I humbly request that you lift that ban. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have just imposed a 90-day restriction on MM, which enjoins him from "removing reliable citations" in any article under the scope of the I-P conflict. You placed this restriction at 17:04, 14 February 2009, and at 23:17, 14 February 2009 , he removed a reliably sourced quote from Zionist entity. It should also be noted that while you had narrowly worded the other restriction as related to any "Samaria" edits, MM has been on a similar crusade to remove not just "Samaria", but its counter part, "Judea", from numerous articles - which he is still doing: It's time for tougher sanctions. NoCal100 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Look closely and you will find that the citation is still there (even though the diff makes it look otherwise). What I removed was an irrelevant quote that had no bearing on the subject matter. Your revert has since been reverted by another editor. . MeteorMaker (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As you admit above you removed a reliably sourced quote, based on your belief that it "had no bearing on the subject matter." You did this while re-inserting a similar quote, from the same article, which has the exact same relevance or irrelevance as the one you removed. This is a clear cut violation of your topic ban. NoCal100 (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call it "tougher sanctions." MM's leitmotif is the removal of any mention of Judea and Samaria in a contemporary context and to "bibilcize" any Judea and Samaria that he can't remove. A ban of Judea would obviously go hand in hand with a ban on Samaria. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A "leitmotif" that happens to be fully supported by every relevant source and WP policy, whereas the opposing position completely lacks sources (at least none have been presented by you or the other half-dozen editors that propound the hypothesis that "Judea" and "Samaria" are modern geographic terms outside Israel). Personally, I see more of a disciplinary problem with editors who insist that WP should contradict every online reference work, official document, and news source. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you agree that any Samaria ban includes a Judea ban.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a killjoy, but I don't agree with that claim at all. Instead of trying to get me banned, I suggest you use your energy to try and find sources that support your position that WP should use terms no other major online encyclopedias do. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you banned, and I never argued for your ban. I don't care either way. I'm just saying, and it sounds like you agree, that Judea and Samaria should be attached for ban purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I leave to other editors to try to make sense of the fact that you bother to post and say you think it "sounds like I agree", right after I've expressly told you I don't. It's no wonder the Samaria debate has been going on for months, in the face of exceptionally clear evidence. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The context indicates that the "non-agree" refers to the same misconception about me trying to get you banned. But now that your stance is clear, would you care to explain how your stance on Samaria differs from your stance on Judea so that a ban on Samaria (whether correct or not) should not also include a ban on Judea?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review loaded question. If you're not fishing for Elonka to extend my ban, why did you even post in this section with a request that "a ban of Judea would obviously go hand in hand with a ban on Samaria"? MeteorMaker (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still hoping you would care to explain how your stance on Samaria differs from your stance on Judea so that a ban on Samaria (whether correct or not) should not also include a ban on Judea?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, keep hoping. And stop wasting mine and Elonka's time. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, thanks for your messages, let me try to explain the wiki-philosophy here. My apologies for the length of this post, but I'm going to try and be as thorough as possible, for both you and the other editors who are watching the discussion:

First, let me be clear that I have no opinion on whether or not Samaria or Judea or biblical or any of these terms do or don't appear in any of the articles. Whether we end up with the terms in the articles or out of the articles, I really have no preference. What my goal is, as an administrator, is to enforce policies, and to reduce disruption to the project. In most cases around the encyclopedia, this is fairly straightforward. For example, we'll have one longterm editor inserting information from reliable sources, and we'll have another editor deleting entire paragraphs and replacing them with, "This is wrong." So we revert the latter editor and instruct them about policies and dispute resolution, and if they continue disrupting without backing up their arguments, we block them, and life in the rest of the project goes on.  :)

In some areas though, especially Israel/Palestine, the disputes are much more complex, so administrators have to be a bit more creative. For example, this "Samaria" issue, which has been going on for a long time now. From my ("I don't care") point of view, there's one group of editors who say "Include" and another group of editors who say "Don't include," and this has been going on for awhile. I know that there are claims of Pro-Israel Anti-Israel Pro-Palestine Anti-Palestine yadayada, but again, administrators aren't going to care too much about that. What we do care about, is policies, especially WP:V and WP:UNDUE and WP:DR.

To give a more specific example: When editor A puts something into an article with reliable sources, and editor B removes the information and/or the sources, and absent any other input from other editors, the administrators are (usually) going to support editor A, and editor B is going to be encouraged to follow other steps in dispute resolution. There are exceptions to this, such as when dealing with biographies of living people. With BLPs, the burden of proof swaps around, and it's the responsibility of the editor wanting to include the information (especially if it's negative), to prove that it's well-sourced and appropriate in someone's bio, before it can be allowed to stick.

Getting away from biographies though and back to geography: we have editor A with sources, and editor B who says that the information (and sources) are giving undue weight to a particular concept. What editor B should now do is follow WP:DR: They can try rewriting the article to find a compromise, where editor A's information is included, but editor B can add their own (sourced) information as a counterpoint, or rework the wording of editor A's addition. Or, editor B can start a thread at the article's talkpage, and either find a compromise there with editor A, or start inviting other editors in, per an RfC or notices at a WikiProject or noticeboard. If the information which was added by editor A is a genuine problem, or a clear violation of WP:UNDUE, other editors will see it for what it is, the consensus will be clear, and the information and/or sources can come out of the article. If the consensus is not clear, try inviting more editors, or try mediation.

If things remain deadlocked, the tiebreaker may still be made by the sources. Not by quantity of sources, but by the existence of the sources, and the opinions of editors on how to interpret those sources. If there are 10 reliable sources saying "blue", and 30 reliable sources saying "red", and one group of editors says, "The article should say 'blue'", and another group of editors says, "You guys are insane, the article should obviously say 'red'", then the administrators are going to look at the situation, and if there's no clear consensus, the decision is probably going to be, "The article should say both blue and red, in proper proportion to how the topic is presented in reliable sources". So applying this to Samaria, it means (as I'm interpreting the discussions thus far), that the term can be used in the articles, as long as it is properly attributed and placed in the proper proportion. At Israeli settlement, this seemed to boil down to a compromise of, "Samaria can be mentioned in the article, but shouldn't be in the lead."

As for why you were banned and others weren't, please don't take this as an indication that no one else will ever be banned. Sometimes multiple bans are issued each day, sometimes one ban at a time, sometimes they're staggered out over a week, it really depends. I have to be careful what I say because I don't want to inflame the situation, but it's reasonable to assume that I (and other administrators) are observing the behavior of several editors in this dispute, and may institute other bans. To see who's at risk, look at WP:ARBPIA, check the names in the "notified" list, and also review the history of the talkpages of other editors in this dispute. If I or another administrator has warned/nudged/cautioned them, it means that editor's behavior is being watched.

Ultimately the Samaria dispute seems to come down to this: One group of editors wants the Samaria term in the article. Another group doesn't. There are sources both ways. There is no clear consensus among the editors as to how things should be handled. RfCs have not brought clarity to the issue. The community of wider editors doesn't care. The public doesn't seem to care too much either (otherwise we'd get a stream of outraged anonymous messages on the talkpage). So if there's no consensus, and no one else seems to care, let it go. It's not worth this much angst, over how to word one sentence on a much longer article. You may also wish to review Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars, for examples of other places around the project where editors spent way too much time quibbling over very minor points. We've got a huge encyclopedia here, with thousands of new articles flowing in every day. There's lots of work that needs to be done. So on this "Samaria" question, we talk it over, we flip a coin, if nothing's clear, we put a pin in it and move on to other debates. Editors that don't seem able to let things go, especially when they're not working on anything else on the project, are probably going to be asked to leave.

Another measuring stick that administrators use, is looking at the editing history of each editor. If there's one editor who has created multiple articles, who is constantly arguing with another editor who's never created a single article, the "writing" editor will often receive better backup from the administrators, to allow them to get back to building the encyclopedia, while the "arguing" editor may simply be removed from the equation. It doesn't mean that their arguments were necessarily bad. But if their arguments were presented, they've made their case, the options have been considered, and the decision went against their arguments (or there's no consensus), the community expectation is that the arguing editor should let things go and move on to other projects. Now don't get me wrong, consensus can change, so it may be worth re-opening the discussion several months down the line. But sometimes we just have to say, "This is the way the articles are going to be written for awhile," and shoo people away from the discussion to encourage them to work on other things.

Does that help explain the wiki-subtleties at all? For your own purposes, if you'd like to have a stronger voice in discussions: Stop worrying about the Samaria question for awhile. Work on other articles, or even better, expand or create other articles. Having a userpage isn't just for personal information about you, but for information about what you've worked on. Look at other editors' userpages, and you'll see that we talk about the articles and topic areas where we work, and we usually proudly banner the articles that we've helped to promote to a state of higher quality. To do this yourself, pick an article that's in so-so shape, and improve it to good article or featured article status. Or if your talents are more in "article review" than "article creation", help out at WP:GAN, and you'll see there's a backlog of articles where reviews have been requested. You could be a decisionmaker on whether or not nominated articles should be promoted. This kind of work would be extremely helpful to the encyclopedia, and would have the added bonus of giving you recognizable accomplishments that you could place on your userpage. Which would give you a much stronger voice in any article discussions where you choose to participate. --Elonka 17:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Meteormaker is perhaps the most knowledgeable specialist editor on this area we have, however. He is trying to have consistency in wiki usage. As it is, on a wide range of articles, one can have (a) Samaria/Judea in the lead, or (b) lower down, or (c)not at all in the article, but (d) only in footnotes, according to the forces in place, the determination of the parties, and where bad faith occurs, the numbers game of vote stacking and tagteaming which is high on this issue. This means that in terminology relating to the West Bank, wiki articles are chaotic, because the case must be argued over dozens of articles over and over again. Nothing done on Israeli Settlements necessarily affects other articles, and vice versa. I appreciate your general suggestions, but this is the area where Meteormaker has been most informative for wikipedians, given his mastery of many sources. To suggest he get interested in other areas is to leave the problem of coherence of wiki terminology in I/P area languishing, and while it languishes, leave numerous pages open to the usual gamesmanship. Lastly, the clash in substance is between a national POV, and international usage. As simply as that. Those who want Israeli terminology in the area called the Palestinian territories represent a political perspective. Those who oppose it, for a variety of reasons, appeal to international usage,(not primarily to Palestinian perspectives) as established in courts and official government documents. They are two POVs, but one represents that of one nation, the other of governments and jurists the world round. Technically, therefore, wiki guidance as used where nationalist conflicts occur should be the default approach to resolving these issues I hope my comments are not intrusive.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, have you decided to remove the restriction placed on MM, that prevents him from removing material that is reliably sourced? As I pointed out, immediately after you placed the restriction, he removed a reliably sourced quote from Zionist entity. Today, as you are aware, he has been edit-warring at the ADL disambiguation page, to remove the description of the ADL as an "anti-hate group". At his request, I provided a reliable source that describes the ADL in those exact words, and Jayjg has provided 2 additional ones. Despite this, and despite the restriction you placed, he removed the well sourced description (while, oddly, keeping in the sources that support it). It seems the restriction you placed is pretty toothless, and unsurprisingly, MM has referred to it as an "inofficial block" 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NoCal, you seem confused about the WP definition of "citation". Per Elonka , I edited the disambig page by simply copying in what the first line of the actual article says (nota bene, after Jayjg had ran and edited it to not say "interest group" any more ).MeteorMaker (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're now wikilawyering to claim that the restriction allows you to remove reliably sourced material, so long as you don't remove the sources referred to? I'll let Elonka clarify what she meant. NoCal100 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not Wikilawyering, and yes, I am allowed to remove anything except citations, and Elonka has said the entire ban was based on a misunderstanding and that she will lift it soon anyway . Though it would be helpful to know when. Elonka? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Shahak

Israel Shahak. This is rather simple. On that page I have great difficulty in trying to get editors to redraft a defective section, which was written from three uncited sources, and then sourced to another book (Segev) which did not back those details. I've been invited by the looks of it to an edit-war. My request for precise citation has been mocked by the use of citations that are not in the sources. I can't edit the page anymore, but this is not a content dispute. NoCal100 has given as a source for 'Haredi Jew' a text (Paul Bogdanor p.121) which refers to an 'Orthodox Jew'. Apart from the fact that Paul Bogdanor is an unreliable source, whose information comes in any case from the three reliable sources we all agree on, this constitutes an infraction of WP:OR. 'Orthodox Jew' of the source has been twisted into 'Haredi Jew'. This and a dozen other examples show, in my view, bad faith. The editors have warred on this. Why not simply agree to write the section according to the exact wording of the 3 RS? The new source, as I repeatedly noted, does not support the claim, the claim violates WP:OR, and yet I cannot undo it further without an infraction of the 3rr rules. I regard this mode of deliberately insisting on a false source as problematical with that editor. He knows I can't stand bad sourcing, and appears to persist in making what any simple check will show is a falsification, to provoke an edit war. I don't need advice. The page needs closer administrative oversight that it is getting. Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

you asked for a source, and you got one, and you responded by twice removing the source, with the unsupported claim that a book published by a mainstream press and edited by an academic is "unreliable source". You forum shopped this to Misplaced Pages talk:No original research, and not getting your way there (an uninvolved editor telling you clearly, in no uncertain words "Citing Jakobovitz for the content of Shahak's letter is a secondary source ", you decided to give it a go here. Please stop your disruption and start editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. NoCal100 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a source for 'Haredi Jew'. You gave one. I checked it. I found a reference to 'Orthodox Jew'. I reverted this, and explained why. You insisted on reverting back, knowingly restoring what was a WP:OR infraction. I can put up with being wikistalked, and tagteamed against, but I can't put up with someone who adds to his arsenal the deliberate insertion of a false claim, that a source says something it evidently does not say. On this you have harassed both me, and the page. This is not about psychical games, but correctly identifying in a source the terms used by that source, and not pretending that they say what they do not say. Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As for forumshopping. You asked me to refer to a forum on reliable sources if I disagreed with your edit. I did. Now you accuse me of forumshopping because I took your advice. Christ Almighty! This is fucking absurd! In the last ferw days I have had every accusation, including antipathy to Jews thrown at me by people who refuse to discuss their edits while reverting. All NoCal100 does on pages I edit is raise futile conflicts, and insistently repeat 'you are disruptive' 'you are warned'. The pattern is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a source, and I gave you one. You then removed it with an edit summary "Bogdanor is not a reliable secondary source for the incident", and mentioned nothing of the niggle you have now raised, that it says 'Orthodox' rather than Haredi (which is a subset of Orthodox). Malcolm Schosha restored it, and you AGAIN removed it with an edit summary that said "Rt tagteaming restoration of patently unreliable source". The niggle makes its first appearance only after that. feel free to change the text from Haredi to Orthodox, if that niggle so bothers you, but cease disruptively removing well sourced material with false claims of unreliability.

As for forumshopping, I indeed asked you to take it to RSN, and I noted what response you got there - the forumshopping is then running to Elonka to try and get here what you could not get there. NoCal100 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re niggling and edit summaries. I stressed the problem on the talk page of the Haredi issue here before you made the erronenous citation to Bogdanor. You then went and edited in Bogdanor, a new source, as if this justified Haredi, a few minutes after I'd warned the page of the problem. Bogdanor is a notoriously bad source, and uses in any case only Shahak and Jakobovits, so that was a manifest provocation. Neither you nor Malcolm checked the complaint re Haredi, and the source. You tagteamed to revert me, without either of you checking that Bogdanor does not say what you edit insinuates he says.

Elonka said she was watching the page some time ago. She knows I voted against her in that dispute on her administrative role. She knows I rarely if ever agree with her 'formalism'. I trust, precisely because of this, that there will be no implication here that I have sought out a prospective administrator who might be favourable to my POV. To the contrtary. This is called ethics. I would ask you to retract accusations I forumshop.

I note that you finally admit, after all of my efforts on the talk page, and your reverts, that I am correct. No one in wiki is allowed to interpret texts in the way you admit to doing, i.e. insisting that an Orthodox Jew can be described as an Haredi Jew. This is not a niggle. This is what editing it all about, getting facts right, cleaving strictly to quality sources. Jakobovits, Shahak and Segev speak of an 'Orthodox Jew'. You have warred with me because I want this to be written. You have insisted that Haredi Jew stand, you have adduced an extremely poor and partisan source by a journalistic hack to justify a wording that even he does not use, and my attempts to undo the damage your warring caused have only led to challenges, reverts, and complaints of forumshopping. In my book this is unacceptable. You do not appear to be editing with an eye to texts, but with an eye to your adversary.

If Elonka wants to check. out the Bogdanor source. I asked for a citation for 'Haredi Jew'. This is what NoCal came up with, i.e. 'Orthodox Jew'.

This whole kerfuffle has arisen by your refusal to admit my revert of an error you now admit making was correct. This is an objective datum, not a clash in interpretations. I'll be interested to see if you have now the honesty to self-revert, or edit that page in conformity with sources.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Up to 50% of edits Elonka-related

Hi Elonka. I wonder whether you might refrain from suggesting the above about me on wikipedia: it is not supported by any of my diffs. Besides, as you know, I am on wikibreak in the Lent term, because I am extremely busy in real life. Are you trying to harrass or bully me? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote Guy of Ibelin, senechal of Cyprus and Guy of Ibelin, bishop of Limassol. Was there something wrong with them? Mathsci (talk)

What to do about an editor that is adding incorrect information to Misplaced Pages

In this article talk page Talk:Herman_J._Mankiewicz, I have found that user User:Wikiwatcher has made at least four errors in the article he is contributing to. I am not sure if he is adding them incorrectly on purpose, or is a sloppy editor, or he is using sources that are incorrect. He added two paragraphs to the lede of that article that were unsourced, and when I added fact tags, he removed them and justified on the talk page that he got the information from further in the article or from other Misplaced Pages articles. When I challenged that and said that the info had to come from a reliable source and had to be sourced on the article space not the talk page, he then said that they came from a single source, a biography that isn't available online. The four errors I found are listed on the talk page. Well, three I found, someone else found that he added an incorrect photo before I reached the article. Any suggestions? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hey Elonka, I'm having a bit of difficulty with User:Kasaalan. He seems to be an SPA focusing almost entirely on Rachel Corrie and satellite articles -- see here: . Recently, and unprovoked, he starts accusing me of "hate" , and that I "adore IDF irrationally." I deleted those comments, he put them back in, with more on the subject of me hating. I finally decided, though he is an SPA and difficult to communicate with, to just ask him to strike them himself in this thread. AFAICT, Kasaalan agreed to consider doing so at some indeterminate point in the future if I would agree with him more. I'm thinking of deleting the comments again myself and may yet do so, but wondered what your thoughts were. IronDuke 18:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, seems to be taken care of. IronDuke 22:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also about the Rachel Corrie talk page. Elonka, i understand that you are quite busy, and you may not have noticed the incresingly disruptive editing of Untwirl, a single purpose account who has repeatedly violated WP:NPA by discussing his/her negative opinions of other editors, rather than discussing article content. I think the problem has now become WP:DISRUPT. To give a few of the most recent examples: . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives fan fiction vandal

Elonka, I am in desperate need of some help. Jayron32, TAnthony, and myself have been trying to deal with an IP vandal that keeps daily adding fan fiction to Days of Our Lives articles. The IP changes everytime, but usually, he/she is putting children's names that have never been aired. If you look at my contributions, you will see all I have done for the past two is revert numerous fan fictions. What can we do? As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated. Rm994 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

To those who read my talkpage: Due to some off-wiki matters, I won't have as much time for Misplaced Pages for awhile. My apologies to those who have been waiting for replies from me. For those with urgent issues about arbitration enforcement, you may wish to consider posting at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. For other issues where an administrator is needed right away, try the incident noticeboard. Thanks, and I'll be back as soon as I can, --Elonka 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)