This user may have left Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads has not edited Wikipedia since 20 March 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
If you are an admin and are here about a block I have made, feel free to lift or amend if the situation has changed, miscreant has repented, consensus is now against block etc. Please let me know you have done so. Thanks. |
|
Misspelled music festivals * 2009 * 2010(1) * 2010(2) * 2011(1) * 2011(2) * 2012(1) * 2012(2) * 2012(3) |
Hi, This is an old talk, I know : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_Van however your logic about the Van and the Angora cats (in Turkey) being the same breed is unusual to see, however you are right! Warm regards from Turkey, from a member of The Angora Cat Association.--Ankara Kedisi 07:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You're the second person I know of who's read the Lensman series. MSJapan ( talk) 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
907 mainspace edits. Nobody Ent 22:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick thanks for quick Oversighting. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 03:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You once mediated a similar infobox dispute. Can you be objective at Stephen H. Wendover as to whether the infobox is a distraction to the reader, or is helpful to the reader? Both arguments are valid and really more an issue of aesthetics, so a third opinion ... well, a fourth in this case, would be helpful. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I've dropped you a line. WormTT( talk) 16:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know some more MMA SPA's have shown up, for example Nurple is the New Purple ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Noahco ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) along with Jfgsloeditor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for which there is an open WP:ANI here. Mt king (edits) 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Nobody Ent 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You showed interest in the discussion at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover the other day. As an admin, could you look at this again? Mr. Norton is currently starting an edit war over the infobox, claiming consensus, although the discussion on the talk page IMO shows that there is none. Kraxler ( talk) 01:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I've noticed that the name of the first song off the album The Poison is wrong. The real name is "Intro", not "Intro ... My Lifestyle". I tried to change it, but there are two users who do not stop reverting my edits without consulting. So I've been involved in an edit war. An unregistered user changed back the name several times and he added a reference from Last.fm, but I think that is not a reliable source. Moreover, I have added some references to the talk page such as the official BFMV website, itunes, BBC and even a picture of the album.
This is so frustrating! I have that CD in my house (I bought it a few years ago because I was a big fan of Bullet For My Valentine) and I can read clearly that the name of the song is just "Intro". So I want to ask you to end this discussion. Thank you. Cristian MH ( talk) 13:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I already agreed to stop editing the track names, and even added more reviews to the reception section since the disbute ended. I have talked with the user on his and my talk page, and I haven't edited anything regarding the tracks since I told them I would stop. I wasn't even warned about an edit war, and I only reverted twice meaning I in no way violated the 3RR. I am requesting that you unblock me from editing The Poison as I did not violate any rules. TJD2 ( talk) 14:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with that; I figured after I posted this that it might be just locked, but wasn't sure as I don't ever log off Wikipedia. As I said, I'm done with the track name argument, and have been for a while. I agree with you about the constant updates. Thank you for addressing my concern. TJD2 ( talk) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear "Elen of the Roads"
I can't take this user's abuse anymore. If well intentioned editors can get harassed like this, I don't want to continue at Wikipedia. RobertRosen ( talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain more specifically why you struck out your vote?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The following policies/customs/practice apply here
Let's leave out the two sockmasters for the moment. Focus on the editors who have legitimate accounts.
IIf the users with legitimate accounts were doing nothing wrong, they shouldn't have been ibanned.
If Mathsci is equally bad in how he interacts with the legitimate accounts, a normal (two way) iban would have been the right remedy
If Mathsci was behaving well but the other editors included in the iban were engaged in following Mathsci around sniping, the other editors should have been blocked or tbanned for being disruptive.
If the other editors were trolling, they should have been blocked for trolling.
If they were supporting the trolling socks, they should have been blocked for that.
At the end of the day, a one way interaction ban would appear to be the wrong remedy, but I don't have enough processed data to decide what the right remedy is, so I struck my vote. It seems to me that the issue of trolling socks, and the issue of the behaviour of the legitimate editors, is getting conflated, but the remedies proposed are not dealing with that. What should have happened if Arbcom was not going to support the original AE sanction was an examination of the behaviour of all parties against the checklist above, to determine where all the behaviours fall. Since everything on Wikipedia becomes stale so quickly, I don't know if there is still the opportunity to do this. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
One more thing; users at the Call of Duty article keep reverting my work claiming they "don't need sources". They state the game Call of Duty: World at War is a part of the Call of Duty: Black Ops series, when in actuality although it is in the same universe, it is not in the same series. I've looked into this as well, and no sources support this claim. Nor have I ever heard COD1,2 and 3 reffered to as the "Original Trilogy". The way I see it without a source, these claims of WaW being in the Black Ops series are inaccurate. TJD2 ( talk) 22:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Nobody Ent 23:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Think there is a new one ..... 65 Edits Per Hour ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mt king (edits) 18:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't yet know when or if I will get to it, but I wanted you to know I added a comment of yours to my To-do list. In short, I'd like to see a procedure enabled to expunge a block from a block list, where the parties agree that the original block was in error. While some cases, such as your example, are clear-cut, the boundaries are tricky, so I'm not ready to propose until I'm ready to spend some time on it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
[12] - it shows that a block happened at a specific time but everything else is blocked out, at least for me. If I look at the revision specifically, I can see everything as an admin. (Don't worry, I'll undo this :) ) -- Rs chen 7754 00:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
FTR, I don't want it completely disappeared. I would like it if there were some record, somewhere, that includes all the blocks, even the inadvertent ones, to help make sure the system isn't gamed. But make it so that the block log easily viewable would contain only those that were in the oopsie category. I don't even want to remove those where many admins would say they wouldn't block in those circumstances, and the original blocking admin agrees it was a little overzealous. Leave that one there. I want to remove only those like the "Oops I thought it was an impersonator, don't I feel foolish", or "oh yeah, that comment was directed at you, not by you". Some of this is personal. I have a clean block log, plan to keep it that way, and would be royally pissed if someone accidentally blocked me. If I'm skating near the edge, and someone blocks me, even if many wouldn't that's on me. But if someone misreads a diff, or clicks the wrong button, I'd sure like it if that could be removed from the main block log, and I'd be happy that it remains in the longer record. I want to be able to say "I have a clean block log". I don't want to have to say, well, when you look at my block log, here's what you need to know..."-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
All block log entries should be expunged automatically by the software 6 months after the unblock, if the person isn't reblocked in that interval. There is entirely too much drama and long term conflict from people getting pissy about block logs. Giano was a mostly-sane editor until he melted down over a block, similarly Mbz1, Malleus, etc. If someone does something bad enough that it needs to be remembered longer than 6 months, then people will remember it, there will be discussion threads to point at, etc. What we have now is a moronic combination of kindergarten and Orwell: "this is going on your permanent record!!!" The book Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age ( ISBN 0691150362) looks very interesting. We do not need to memorialize all this stuff, just because we have enough computers to each be our own little FBI Records Division. 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 00:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Urgently required. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I wroting the response your complaint on ANI. -- B767-500 ( talk) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
what about Keep UFC Articles ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? Mt king (edits) 19:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
.....and another one gone, and another one gone...another one bites the dust! (although Black Kite was the one that got him) -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You might take notice of my discussion at User talk:Courcelles. I appreciate your open-minded and thoughtful consideration during what was/is obviously an uncomfortable situation. Of course, the decision is still entirely within the domain of ArbCom, but I felt the information may be of use to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen of the Roads. I am involved in an AFD discussion here that has gone strange. User:Qworty has struck my text and accused me of being the blocked paid editor Morning277. I see from the investigation here that you have recently been involved, so I was hoping you could assist. I'm a new editor and have made less than 20 edits to discussions. I've never edited an article. I'm happy to turn over my account for a user investigation. Can you please help? BeyondKneesReach ( talk) 04:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
to run for ArbCom again. It's a thankless task, and I'm certain it's a terrible timesink, but I'd feel better if you were running. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates#Elen_of_the_Roads
I was looking to see the denouement of the Kraxler ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but it is gone, I do not see it in the archives either. Can you find it for me? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to thank you for your comment to Qworty regarding the level of hostility in his/her interactions with me. You are quite right; there have been no real conflicts between me and other editors in the past 2-3 years. This recent attack on over 30 articles I've created and/or edited has been quite a shock, and I've bit my lip and tried not to react in kind. Whole reference sections and properly-constructed bibliographies have been deleted as "unsourced", then the articles have been nominated for deletion as "non-notable". I welcome any attention you can give to the issue (understanding that your comment did not mean you were taking sides or anything). Rosencomet ( talk) 19:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Louis Martinie, David Jay Brown, Luisah Teish, Patricia Monaghan, M. Macha Nightmare, Trance Mission, Matthew Abelson, Kenny Klein, Brushwood Folklore Center, Donald Michael Kraig, LaSara FireFox and Ian Corrigan.
Given the latest MtPrincess ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is there a range block that might help out ? Mt king (edits) 20:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Did you get to this [15]? NE Ent 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I promised to not post again on his talk page and I won't. But these two edits [16] [17] are concerning. I don't think he understands the message you posted two weeks ago that he cannot edit while he's blocked. Or maybe he thought he could legitimately edit with his old User:Take Me Higher account.
Contrary to what some people may think, I don't necessarily want Bull-Doser to stay blocked for eternity. It would be great to see Bull-Doser becoming a positive contributor someday. I think he has the potential to bring a lot to Wikipedia if only he would listen to others for a change instead of living in his world. But edits such as these two recent ones coupled with his lack of interaction with others makes me think that he's not ready yet to be back. Farine ( talk) 04:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Just because. St Anselm ( talk) 06:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
I was worried it wasn't going to happen. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to take a moment to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving! Rosencomet ( talk) 12:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This is to notify you that you have been named in a statement issued by the arbitrators not running for re-election, regarding the recent leaks from arbcom-l. If you have comments regarding the statement, please post them to the Arbitration Committee's Noticeboard talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Elen, please resign from the Arbcom and your adminship, effectively immediately. 24.61.9.111 ( talk) 07:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen!
Please just take it easy for a day. I trust that you had good reasons. My guess is that you wanted to warn the possible victims of leaks, having learned from previous leaking scandals the damages that can occur.
Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
If you resign over what is essentially fallout from the worst behaviour by an arbitrator I have ever seen, attempting to deflect attention from his own indefensible statements and actions, then I'll retire. Difference is - lots of people would miss you, and your enormous contribution. Begoon talk 13:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm at work at the moment. Give me till this evening to post a statement - the Arb statement (which I only saw an hour or so ago) isn't the full tale. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
[18]. Courcelles 20:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Can I first of all confirm that I have at no time ever disclosed any of the sensitive personal information that has been sent to the arbcom mailing list. The mailing list software distributes email sent to the list (it's not webmail). When I cease to be an arbitrator, I will dump that part of my email archive. There is no requirement for ex-arbs to do this, but any UK organisation that permitted ex-employees to retain sensitive personal data after they left would suffer legal consequences, so I believe it is the correct thing to do.
Second, can I confirm that I am not the person sending anonymous emails. If I particularly wanted Coren to see that piece of text, I would just have sent it to him. I don't know who is behind that.
What JClemens had said about what he would do when he ran for Arbcom was said as part of a rambling conversation between a number of committee members, which got round to Hobbes Leviathan at one point. It moved on to civility, and views from the recent case were rehashed. Following this, JClemens sent the email on his talkpage, indicating that he was going to ask candidates whether a particular statement by Malleus Fatuorum should have resulted in a ban and, if not, why not. As has been alluded to elsewhere, several Arbs indicated that it was not appropriate to send it to the list, it belonged off list.
What I did do is discuss it with a third party, in a private chat. I was worried that Malleus would react to the question with one of his anglo saxon epithets, and another request for a ban would ensue. People were asking me if I would stand again, I did not want to get involved in this, but I did not know what to do for the best. Yes, I was angry and used some unparliamentary language. And yes, I did reproduce the words as part of the discussion. To say 'at the upcoming election I am going to stand on this platform and ask this question'- it simply did not seem to me to be something that had been said under the seal of the confessional (an absolute guarantee of non-disclosure).
Eventually I concluded that I was over-reacting, and the community would reach it's own verdict, so I just put the note you can see higher up this talkpage.
The next thing I knew, people were apparently getting anonymous emails with the text on JClemens talkpage. Where I do consider I made a substantial error of judgement is not at that point reporting back to Arbcom immediately everything I had said. This was because the person I had confided in assured me they were not sending random emails (and I have no reason to think they were) and I did not want them to be subjected to the hassle they were eventually subjected to.
So that's what happened.
I understand the view of those who say that everything ever said on that list must be under the seal of the confessional. My view is that ultimately a closed list creates an 'us and them' mindset because you can't discuss things with anyone else, and there's no requirement for propriety. I've seen it on a lot of forums, and would prefer to see much better confidentiality for personal data, and less exclusivity in discussion. That said, this was not an attempt to dismantle the list.
I also understand the view of those who don't think it was the sin that cannot be forgiven, but still think it was a huge error of judgement and I'm a complete incompetent.
I also understand the view of those who don't think there is a huge problem, but wouldn't trust me
I refute wild speculation about how I'm going to go mad and publish loads of personal data.
I'll accept whatever happens next. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Confiding in one trusted person, on an issue that is apparently going public anyway, that involves no private data, is something I can't condemn you for. Trying to get my head around this.
If your confidante didn't share the full text of Jclemens's now-public post with anyone, and neither your confidante nor you sent the anonymous Gmails, then someone else with access to the arbcom list did. That was either another arb who coincidentally decided to widely publicise Jclemens's intentions - which is possible but improbable - or more likely another arb who learned that you had disclosed the email to a confidante and decided to make a scandal out of it.
Are you aware of this being discussed anywhere other than here and
Anthonyhcole ( talk) 04:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Strike my unhelpful speculation. 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask Elen a question. Roger Davies has indicated that there is a sliding greyscale in email communications with arbcom and between arbitrators. That evidently does not apply to sensitive personal data. There is no doubt in my mind that Elen can be completely trusted with that kind of sensitive and confidential data. The matters under discussion here, however, did not involve personal data, but an inappropriate use of arbcom-l as part of an election campaign. I have assumed that prior to the email addressed to Risker published on his talk page, Jclemens had sent a previous shorter email, also concerning ACE2012 and Malleus Fatuorum, to arbcom-l. If so, without mentioning names, had any arbitrators already objected to that previous email as being off-topic or inappropriate for the list before Jclemens sent the second email? Mathsci ( talk) 04:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thought you could use one of these!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks. Certainly could. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed all the crap your getting, maybe a cute kitten will cheer you up, if not you can always eat it. You got my vote BTW, I have always been of the opinion you are one of the better admins around here. Cheers.
Darkness Shines (
talk) 19:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Yum, kitten. Thanks. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you be willing or able to post the responses you gave to the Arbs on November 13th and November 25th respectively regarding the leak? I presume these are the dates where you acknowledged revealing details from the mailing list and I think it would be helpful to know what you specifically told the other Arbs regarding your communications with non-Arbs.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Elen: I wrote you a note above suggesting that you run again for arbitrator, and I have no regret now for having done so. When this recent brouhaha arose, I considered whether it would be best to vote for you or not in the current election, not because I have any doubt whatsoever about your discretion – which I do not – but simply because I wondered if your re-election might create a new ArbCom that was unable to be effective, given the actions taken by other arbs. In the end, I decided that it was best for the community that you be on the Committee, and that Jclemens not be, and I voted that way. We will see if other Wikipedians see things the way I have or not, but regardless of the outcome of the election, please know that at least one Wikipedian appreciates that you placed the good of the community above all else, and were willing to put yourself on the line. Best of luck to you, in the election and in all else. 10:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken ( talk • contribs)
Apologies for absence - had the most humongous migraine and been unable to look at a computer screen for two days.
To answer a few points:-
@Anthonycole - the party I talked to bundled up what I said and passed it to Nuclear Warfare, who promptly forwarded it to Sir Fozzie, who had it by the 13th and was asking about it. According to those who have seen it, what was sent to Coren was slightly different, and I have no idea who sent it. I would not like to speculate that it was another arbitrator, but the request to Coren to verify it by returning it to Arbcom suggests that it was not intended as a tip of but for other reasons.
@Mathsci - Risker and a couple of others had already attempted to shut the discussion down at an earlier stage, as it was in their opinion running completely off the rails. However, another member of the committee argued that there was no precedent for shutting down a discussion as Arbitrators could basically post however they felt led. One problem with this setup, where everything is as sacred as everything else, is that Arbitrators are free to post personal attacks or outrageous statements and there really is not a lot one can do about it.
@TDA and Elonka - it would make about a dozen emails but I will totally put my hands up and say that on the 13th I named the person I had spoken to. I had asked the person I had spoken to, and they said they had not sent any text to anyone, so I tried to protect them by saying (several times) that they did not have any verbatim text, but they did have all the details. This was plumb stupid, and I fully accept all condemnation for being plumb stupid.
I didn't send anything to Arbcom on the 25th. I sent the following message to SilkTork, saying I was going to put it on my talkpage when I got back home (I had no access to a pc at that point), and he forwarded it to Arbcom. I gather Arbcom got the details of what I had discussed with a third party by subjecting him to the "third degree" at some point prior to this.
As I referred to publically above, a couple of weeks ago another member of the committee posted what appeared to me to be an election manifesto to the main arbcom mailing list. As you can see above I disagreed with what he said In fact, I was bloody angry. I viewed it as low politics and was particularly concerned that it would have a very bad impact on a third party who hadn't signed up to be part of it. As such, mentioned it to a couple of people and discussed it in more detail with a friend (ranted at him about it would be nearer to mark, to be honest. I wouldn't score any civility points).
The situation is being compounded because someone else (I have honestly no idea who) is apparently sending the text of what I referred to as the election manifesto to some of the candidates using throwaway email accounts. No idea what the point of that is, it seems very childish to me. If I'd intended to advertise it, I'd have posted it on my talkpage. All it said (in several paragraphs - it was a political speech) is that he was disappointed that the current committee did not back his stance on civility, he wants to see a future Arbcom that backs his concept of civility, he intends to make that his platform, and he feels very strongly that the community supports him on this.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy says that Arbitrators should preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations and the Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties. However, Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Communications_and_privacy states that Arbitrators usually seek to treat your communications, including emails, as private when possible. We however cannot guarantee against public disclosure for a number of reasons, including potential security limitations. Accordingly, you should not disclose sensitive personal information in your communications with us. Once received, your communications may be shared with committee members and, in some limited cases, with third parties to assist in resolving issues or other purposes. Your communications may be kept for an undetermined period of time for archival or other reasons. So if you are an individual, you don't actually have a guarantee of privacy.
It is the view of some members of the Committee that everything an Arbitrator ever sends to that email address - bad jokes, gossip, laundry lists - is under the seal of the confessional and can never be repeated or referred to elsewhere. I do accept that some people will feel quite strongly that what is said in confidence should remain in confidence. Some will feel that what I did (talking it over with someone) was entirely beyond the pale and means I can never be trusted again. Personally, I think that far stricter confidentiality than that email list is required where personal data is being handled, but by and large the deliberations of the committee should be in public unless there is a privacy issue. Where this leaves election manifestos, bad jokes, gossip and laundry lists is anyone's guess.
As to why I haven't resigned. Well, some of what I said above is actually important. Arbcom have already acknowledged that their mailing list system is not suitable for sensitive personal information, but continue to use it for that purpose. It sends your personal information to third party email inboxes, over which it has no control. Data can be kept forever by persons who no longer have any affiliation with the organization. There isn't even a requirement to delete your email archive when your term of office ends. There's a reason English local councillors all have official email accounts - so the Council can make sure the archive gets deleted when the councillor's term of office ends.
And did you know that if Arbcom sends you an email, you can't share it with anyone. That's part of what "Sent by a committee member in the performance of their duties" means, and there have been fireworks repeatedly when someone has posted an email that an Arbitrator sent to them.
And a closed list where members can say what they like without fear of consequence because nobody can say anything elsewhere is ultimately corrosive. There is no reason to extend protection to every petty comment, every off the wall statement, every personal attack. Because that's what is being protected. Not sensitive personal data. Not state secrets. For goodness sake, this isn't NATO, it's dispute resolution. Why do we have this institution in the first place, this sooper seekrit list that people are terrified of. Let's get the personal information somewhere other than fired into random mailboxes, and get the discussion out in the open. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Pony! | |
Hugs! For your patience and professionalism with the current situation, exhibiting grace under fire, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
Awww. I always wanted a pony. No danger of speeding on a pony:) -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Elen of the Roads. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
The Survivor Award | ||
Escaping extrajudicial execution | ||
motion declined NE Ent 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)} |
I have to admit that at first glance that thing looked like some particularly old-fashioned kind of toilet. At least it isn't the Halifax Gibbet. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The arbitration motion regarding you has been archived as not passing. For the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen.
It looks to me like somebody used a private list inappropriately (which bothered you), you discussed it with a friend (which is what friends are for), your friend spread it around without your intent or consent (aargh!), and your hobby suddenly became a lot less fun (at least for the present).
If that's what happened, you absolutely have my sympathy and moral support. I also commend your cool-headedness thus far in response to it! -- SB_Johnny | talk✌ 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen, I'm still trying to decide whether to support you in the ArbCom election, and wonder if I might ask a couple of questions...
Thanks for taking the time to respond. EdChem ( talk) 02:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I am the editor who posted the questions above; I have removed the IP address from which they were posted. EdChem ( talk) 07:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If you are re-elected, what action(s) do you plan to take on the issue of inappropriate use of the mailing list by arbitrators?
What changes will you advocate for arbitration policy relating to mailing list misuse, confidentiality, and disclosure?
In the (admittedly unlikely) event that both you and JClemens are re-elected, how will you go about working together?
Suppose another situation occurred in which an arbitrator posted inappropriately to the list on a topic where the community arguably has a right to know. I refer to a post where disclosure would not violate the privacy of any editor and where the comments made are inconsistent with an arbitrator carrying out her or his duties. How would you handle this situation?
Relating to your recent actions, I am much more disturbed by your misleading your colleagues when asked about the leak than I am about seeking the counsel of a friend. Voting for an arbitrator involves trusting in his or her judgment and whilst I accept that you would not have disclosed personal confidential information, I am concerned that you were unwilling to be fully open about your actions. Please explain to me why I should vote in support of you continuing to serve on ArbCom.
Elen, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful and informative responses. I would like to ask one follow up, if I may. In response to my first question, you advocate closing down the present mailing list as it is unsuited to handling genuinely confidential information - which I think is an excellent idea, but it wasn't the intent of my question. So, suppose the truly confidential material is moved to a secure storage medium. I presume there would still need to be some off-wiki communication channel for arbitrators. How would you like policy to handle the issue of inappropriate use of that channel by arbitrators? EdChem ( talk) 05:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC) PS: If you like, I'd be willing to copy and paste my questions and your answers over to your candidate questions page.
The Original Barnstar | ||
"For bringing such preposterous behavior to light..." I just finished saying my piece on Jimmy Wales' user page and it occurred to me that I was right! Anonymity is only necessary on wiki to protect people physically or financially — it is not meant to provide carte blanche for threats and backstage bullying. In your next term, actively work to end the veil of secrecy around ArbCom deliberations. Carrite ( talk) 16:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. If elected I will work for better protection for the information handled by Arbcom that can affect people in real life, and greater transparency in the decision making processes. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
* <- that's a really cheap barnstar.
Hi Elen.
It seems that the older I get, the more I'm reminded on a daily basis how precious our time is in this reality. I think it is so sad that so much time is expended in railing against other people; and often people we will never have the chance to meet in real life. I hope you'll forgive me this rant on your talk page, but it's something of a cathartic exercise for me. I truly admire your honesty, your integrity, and your kindness. You are a good person. You have a good heart. I wanted to tell you that. I wish I would have told others that when I had the chance. You're good people Elen of the Roads, and I'm a better person for having read the things you've said. All my best to you and all you hold dear. — Ched : ? 09:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Elen, would you mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski? In your arguments for blocking PMA/JCS back in February, you included as one of the hints the use of semicolons in edit summaries. Having stumbled upon this move request, I personally don't have the slightest shadow of a doubt over who Wtshymanski ( talk · contribs) is. -- 78.35.235.104 ( talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You might like to be aware: that Wtshymanski does not approve of IP editors being able to edit Wikipedia. He also has a looong history of seldom crediting any other editor of acting in good faith and never an IP editor.
You may also care to read this. A second RfU is apparently in draft as I type. 86.145.244.183 ( talk) 14:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Months later: how long does something like this [19] have to hang around? Every few weeks the spinner lands on my name and I get threatened with some kind of "partly constructed RFC/U" gobbletygook. I'm baffled as to what triggered this latest go around. Since you've been helpful in the past, I'm appealing to you to explain to me what's going on. I don't understand any of these people. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 14:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Please review the very short history this user has had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 and determine if Administrative intervention is appropriate. I have tried to explain to the user the policies, yet they do not wish to debate in Wikipedia's rules. Hasteur ( talk) 19:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Mmm... yeah. I may have got a little carried away, but basically I meant what I said. I expect it's time to move db's RFA to her userspace, or what do you think? Incidentally, you might like to check out this cool screenshot of the main page on a certain date a couple of centuries ago. Ah, fame. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC).
I did reply this morning (USA - Eastern time). Again - sorry for being such a grump. I know you've been through a lot, and I shouldn't have added to it. — Ched : ? 01:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised you are standing again for arbcom after your recent record. I refer to the following instances, which are just those I know about and come to mind:
There have been worse abuses by other arbitrators, but I think that is enough to suggest that you should not be standing.
I urge you to withdraw.
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC).
For the above, Elen I was under the impression that there was still a little time left to run on the elections. I would still urge you to stand down if elected.
Having just seen the tip of the iceberg of the recent imbroglio, I can see you were in a cleft stick, and it appears that your actions were not completely at odds with good whistle-blowing ethics. Having been on the receiving end of the apparatchiks actions, as you know, I can sympathise with what you have been going through. I have been concerned with the abuse of the email list for some time, particularly as the committee has failed in it's legal and ethical obligations regarding this data, and the historical leaked emails show the committee in a bad light, regarding anyone with a good grasp of English as "pompous" for example.
Chin up and get editing.
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC).
civility
Thank you for your answers to my questions about our
respect for editors as living persons, for your
illustrations of "fishy" with "
grace under fire", for a
flavoured tea, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (22 November 2009)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I wouldn't normally ask a personal-experience-type question of another editor, but I was so excited by your edit that I have cast caution aside: are you actually British or British-resident or British-visiting (OtherNationalitiesAndLocalitiesMayApplyNoConclusionIsHereinImpliedYourMileageMayVaryAlwaysReadTheInstructions), and have personally consumed muffins in their BrE non-cakey variety and in the AmE "English muffin" species? If so I think I might faint with pure joy. :) That article is depressing me far beyond what should be possible in writing about small breadlike objects... Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 09:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Mt king (edits) 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar ( talk) 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for letting me know about the botched edit. When I hit "save page", I bet there were a few others working on their own and thus it wiped out theirs. I decided to let my outdated comment go and latch onto the current discussion. Thanks again. ( DefGrappler ( talk) 03:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC))
Elen, over a year ago you courtesy blanked and protected the pages of PD, and deleted the sockpuppet categories. This was done with the understanding that he would stop all socking. See e.g. this version of your user talk page, where you promised that " The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Wikipedia - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim." He has since socked quite a few times, the latest one apparently being User talk:Hestiaea [21]. Could you please unblank / undelete all his pages and the sock cats, so that the inevitable future unban discussions get the full picture instead of the courtesy blanked one? Thanks! Fram ( talk) 11:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I contact you as you took part in the discussion on Penyulap's talk page concerning the Ombudsman committee matter. I've started some proposals and discussion on meta about how best to reform the OC to fix the issues it currently has and I would be very grateful if you could drop by and voice your opinion at m:Ombudsman commission/reform proposals. Snowolf How can I help? 12:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Dear Elen, I just want to say Thank you for being there to help people and being one of the best Arb's ever! Your Positive dedication and Priceless contributions are a big part of what makes Wikipedia more enjoyable and easy to use for all ~ For now, all I can say is "Keep It Up" :-) TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
blushes -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer ( talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that you're not there, Elen, as I certainly voted for you. You have always talked a lot of sense. Who will keep the "big boys" in check now, I wonder? But enjoy your break from all the grief. Regards. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I might even get to y'know...edit some articles :) Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur ( talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Most welcome, thank you :) Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I try as much as possible to avoid the underside of Wiki (drama boards and such), but I did appreciate your willingness to stand up for what you thought was right regarding the whole mailing list issue. You had my vote...guess it wasn't enough, though. Intothat darkness 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar of phronesis | |
Thanking your for your wisdom, decisiveness, and kindness. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
I am truly honoured. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You know, you could've just not run instead of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with the arbcom-l screwup? Regardless, my respect for the hard work, insight and good judgement you've added to the committee the past couple years remains unchanged. NE Ent 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I should be doing the congratulations, depending on how you look at it :) It has been a pleasure serving with you; hopefully we'll see Each other on wiki in less fraught circumstances. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work on ArbCom. Losing elections sucks, but you can take solace that you received the 4th most "For" votes of that big slate. Good luck with your future endeavors on WP now that you're free at last... Carrite ( talk) 21:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Home-Made Barnstar | ||
You showed honour and integrity in how you dealt with the whole "civility" shitburst. Just as my confidence in Arbcom reached an all-time low, you were there to shore it up. I am sorry you are leaving the thought police but perhaps you are better off out of it. Best wishes, and thanks for being you. John ( talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks | |
Thanks for all your hard work, Shearonink ( talk) 23:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
[22] - although it's an odd one to pick, as there's a massive discussion between myself and Rich that follows the link, and it's clear it's not a personal attack, even though I'll hold my hands up and say for the umpteenth time it was thoughtlessly offensive to people with OCD.
Ex Arbs are normally allowed to retain the checkuser bit - I'm waiting for her to start demanding that be removed as well, plus I expect my admin tools, and a siteban as a final outcome :) Ah, happy days. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I apologise to all for this bit of a grizzle. Rich and others are right, there are more constructive things to be going at :) Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to restore Penyulap's talk page access so they can participate in the active discussion there about the ombudsman commission, currently a game of telephone. May I take it from your earlier comments there you'd be fine with that? Regards, – SJ + 02:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
sorry Rich, I do this rarely, but I'm getting sick of your continuous barracking on behalf of Penyulap
|
---|
|
—
ΛΧΣ
21 is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— ΛΧΣ 21 05:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Bringing giftwrapped Chocolate Bishzilla for little nominator, omnomnom! Careful you don't get in the way of my cool santa hat morning star, seasonal replacement for biting! Just to keep everybody on their toes! darwinbish BITE 23:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC).
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey Elen! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.
Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Strange how someone I consider a font of humane jollity could poll so divisively—a result that in no way reflects how helpful you are to this community. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Is [ this] called WP:Pointy, not WP:AGF, WP:Hounding, WP:Harrassment, no WP:Collaboration or WP:Canvassing or WP:LynchMob? Read down to the bottom and follow a few links to see how this volatile editor is being wound up. Find some excuse and try to ignore it! Yeah, I may be an IPSockpuppet (see your Wtshymanski complaint above, what was your first fucking clue?) but you're such a bitch and I still love you! Self indeffing now :) 174.118.152.20 ( talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg | Have an enjoyable New Year! | |
Hello Elen of the Roads: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
New Year! Cheers,
Northamerica1000
(talk) 19:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
|
User 98.207.22.233 has been making a string of non-constructive edits to the project. After adding a non-notable uniquely named individual to various "People from ..." pages, edits were made to pages about a religion. First links to pages of things for sale from the uniquely named individual were added; after those edits were reverted, User 98.207.22.233 blanked the resources sections that contained links to books about the religion which appear on Amazon and WorldCat. Whatever you can do will be most gratefully appreciated. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 07:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Basically, the whole discussion is here [ [23]] now. TJD2 ( talk) 08:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I assume you are the "Elen" User:Rich Farmbrough is referring to on my talk page @ User talk:Brewcrewer#Sepsis II. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's a
toast to the
host | |
~ TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you Elen! Enjoy the Whisky ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the good wishes, chocolate, fish, whisky (particularly appreciated) and all else. I've not been around due to a combination of rushing around, determined relaxing, Caorunn, and a slow wave of lurgie passing through the family. Also, this place seems to have got at the cooking sherry and gone mad on Boxing Day, and I'm not sure it's recovered yet :). Still, I hope all of you had excellent holidays, whatever and however you celebrate them. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Your name was mentioned here. I'm not involved at all, just happened to notice that you weren't notified.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 14:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, and happy new year. As a recent Arbcom member I was wondering if you could take a quick look at WP:AN#Admin attention to an RFC/U, please and suggest whether from what you know about Arbcom an appeal is warranted. It is "only" 25,000 words, so I do not recommend spending more than 5 minutes. Basically there is a keyboard character that I can not mention that I am banned from using, and in editing documents I have already found multiple noncontroversial ways it would be helpful. The question, in a nutshell, is an editor being tenacious or tendentious? For example, there are other editors who have agreed that certain words might be spelled better with a k, or some other character, and I have recommended not bringing this up at all this year, other than in one or two RMs, each of which last only a week, and actually discuss the issue instead of parroting that it is disruptive to ask the question. Should any come up over the next six months, the deck is stacked, by eliminating one of the editors known to recommend the letter k, or other character. Secondly, I have characterized the RFC/U and the AN action as simply a result of the incivility at the MOS, which has not abated. Any thoughts? Apteva ( talk) 18:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Elen. I just realized I should have told you that I quoted you in the Arb case I recently requested. Sorry for the delay!-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Anonymous user 12.118.47.158 is persistently messing with a wide variety of articles. Any assistance would be most gratefully appreciated. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report ( link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I see you've dealt with him in the past. I'm having issues with him in his present username "Guerrila of the Renmin" where he has taken ownership of not one but three disambiguation pages when I discovered one of them was using CJK characters (now at AFD), one he redirected to the first, and a third he kept because the items listed are written with different CJK characters than the first. What should be the next course of action with this guy before he attempts to clean start again because he's up to his usual tricks.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that your edit level has severely declined. I hope you're not planning to retire :( — ΛΧΣ 21 21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
So its so long and thanks for all the fish, I guess. I might stop by occasionally and see whether the account is still unblocked. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to mention that my data retention policy you seem so stunned with now was detailed over a year ago to both the Committee and the foundation general counsel and that you didn't have any objections then. — Coren (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe I can be prohibited from replying to the motion onwiki, and so that is what I intend to do. Should any other Arbs communicate their concerns to me, I will respond here.
To respond to the issue that Coren posed, which was along the lines that he did not trust that I would not suddenly decide that some other piece of information should not be kept private. I have a very clear understanding about the need to protect personally revealing information provided by or on individuals. Following UK law, such data must not be shared with individuals who are not authorised to see it (and numerous large fines show the vigour with which this is followed up). The WMF privacy policy relating to OS and CU data covers the same types of data and has the same restrictions (I wonder if it is modeled on European law, which is stricter, to give it the widest possible applicability). It contains more than adequate provision to cover the exceedingly rare situation where a CU or OS might find themselves in possession of information that urgently needs to be lawfully passed to a third party (eg the Feds), and it is clear that the WMF takes an active role in managing that, through their emergency mail system.
That (to my mind) is quite a different situation to revealing outrageous statements made by Wikipedia Arbitrators which, in the opinion already given by several lawyers who perused the situation, could never have had an expectation of privacy in the first place. What must I think be in Coren's mind is that an oversighter can see an allegation about a third party that warranted oversight. Some allegations might be explosive and have very serious consequences (claiming someone is a paedophile or an undercover cop could endanger their lives), others less so, but the key thing is that it must be personally revealing information to be oversighted under the the WMF policy. If the text does not fall into that class, then it should not be oversighted (handily allowing any administrator to delete gross insults that reveal no personal data). If it is oversighted, then it is covered by the policy and can only be revealed to a third party under the constraints imposed by that policy. That's a bright line.
In the case of Checkuser data, it is a little more complicated. The WMF will only provide it to a third party on being presented with the right order from the right court. Consequently, a checkuser should theoretically never be discussing CU data with non CUs. It sometimes happens on the Functionaries list, which has non-CU functionaries subscribed, but all are agreed on that list that it shouldn't happen, and it certainly must not happen anywhere else. At the same time, it is sometimes necessary to put information into SPIs, particularly when dealing with persistent vandals and diligent sockfarmers - and paid editing rings that are socking from each other's locations. There's more of a balancing act here - the minimum necessary information to the smallest number of people, being aware that "editing thru a proxy in China" conveys no identifying information, "editing on a RoadRunner range" just says they are in the US while some Verizon ranges practically give you a street address, "range 212.xxx.xxx.xxx/24" will tell anyone who does a lookup that the editor is in the North of England, "IP is assigned to FooCorp" means you've just revealed where the guy works even if you haven't posted the IP address, and "always edits from FooCorp IP between 23.00 and 06.00 means that FooCorp can finger him as the night watchman. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen. I'm leaving this note here to suggest a way forward and to give a bit more background. As you know, ArbCom tends to have a lot of things on its plate at the same time. This was one matter which was being discussed, and then brought to a head by Coren's e-mail to you. That e-mail was not from the committee, but from him with the committee copied in (though I for one hadn't seen that e-mail before it was sent). As you correctly surmise, that e-mail prompted more discussion. At some point in that, I checked when you had last edited and noticed that it was sometime previously (10 days or so) - Coren can probably clarify whether he had noticed your absence or not. That would have been a good point to send a follow-up e-mail asking for a brief response from you when you got back as to whether you wanted this discussed in public or dealt with by e-mail. You are right that you should have been brought in on this much earlier, and that a public discussion is in some ways easier than e-mail and certainly more transparent, but we are where we are now. I hope we can wind this back a bit and start again. I have suggested to the rest of ArbCom that we move this discussion to a public fora (somewhere better suited for this than your talk page), but it is quite possible that the decision may be that most of the discussion needs to remain internal, though I am happy to state on-wiki my views on the matter. It may take us a while to sort this out, but let me know what you think and how you would like this dealt with. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to tell you where things are now and not leave you hanging: we're currently hashing out the details of a proposed motion that will be posted publicly for voting (I expect /Motions is the most likely venue), and where you will have have an opportunity to respond. That motion will not propose removal of your permissions; that alternative has been robustly discussed (to say the least) and it would have passed or failed by the barest of margins depending on an abstention and an inactive arbitrator – and nobody feels that a decision that marginal on such a delicate issue is advantageous to anyone or the project.
So that you are not taken by surprise, the proposed motion will consist of a strong admonition and a reminder; I expect it should be ready for public discussion in a day or two. — Coren (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Elen, Coren has an interest in keeping alleged Arbitator misbehaviour under the super secret seal of the mailing list archives, the fallout from the his block of Giano makes it clear that his own actions have been and are being concealled from the community by the policy on list secrecy. Any former Arbitrator who has misused the list has reason to fear disclosure and the idea that you are unable to distinguish between genuinely sensitive personally identifying information and material that should have been addressed on-wiki is a fiction – in reality, it is precisely because you are capable of understanding the distinction that you are feared. I am surprised and disappointed that you are being targetted but not at all surprised that Coren would be leading the charge. Unlike you, however, I have great difficulty assuming that the motivation is about potential misuse of the tools or the information to which you have access; that is merely a pretext for action, and I hope that there are enough members of the current Committee who recognise this. EdChem ( talk) 12:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting that Coren chose to add a "Kibitzers" sub-heading. According to the Kibitzer article offers "(often unwanted) advice or commentary" and I have no doubt that Coren would prefer no advice or commentary on this issue. More interestingly, however, kibitzing is a chess term referring to a spectator or spectators "making comments on a chess game that can be heard by the players. Kibitzing on a serious game while it is in progress (rather than during a post-mortem) is a serious breach of chess etiquette." Consequently, I feel the need to point out:
I am dismayed to see Elen considering stepping back from Wikipedia and more than dismayed to see efforts to push her to a situation where she can't use the abilities she has to Wikipedia's best interests. The election shows Elen has a lot of community support and had her situation been heard with out the drama that stalks some of Wkipedia's pages she'd probably have more. I have always had concerns about unilateral power-too many editors damaged by deliberate biased actions. And I have equal concern with the power generated on talk pages to create chaos, and emotional upsurges that have little meaning in terms of logic and reality. This is a collaborative community which means we can use a community in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I 'm not saying Coren is doing anything beyond voicing a concern, but the impact could be as has happened in the past to create a volatile situation that impacts unfairly another person. I sure do wish Wikipedia had a visible-to-the-community-page where something could be explained and where the general community could not come in and pile on, colouring and perhaps twisting what has been said and done. Another fine mess.( olive ( talk) 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC))
You are correct that I have not campaigned on such a platform – not counting the fact that it would have been extraordinarily inappropriate to do so during the election (the closest I've ever gotten to something like that was opine on the propriety of Jclemens's "not a Wikipedian" comment as an answer to a direct question) – I could not possibly claim to have enough information to pronounce myself on that incident at the time.
That said, advanced permission review is part of the normal scope of the sitting ArbCom, and there is nothing exceptional about the incoming committee making that evaluation as part of settling in (to wit what happened around FT2 in 2009). — Coren (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
While I'm not sure exactly what brought on the above, it's reminding me forcibly about when I closed a discussion after having asked a single question, and was reverted for being WP:INVOLVED by an admin who had been an active participant in the discussion. I gave up my bit for a couple of months in disgust, but came back later. Hope to see you at full throttle again soon, Elen! -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Just another morlock stopping by to say "Don't let the bastards grind you down." So, uh, don't let the bastards grind you down. Life is short, the world is large, and almost no one gets what they deserve. But I like the pseudo-person that appears here as "you", and wish you well. - 124.168.72.151 ( talk) 12:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if I must nominate this page for deletion. It consists of mere songs that were used in the show. There is nothing encyclopedic about this, as it may violate WP:NOTIINFO. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello again... Collis Potter Huntington has been changed several times recently Collis Potter Huntington's History Page by a pair of anonymous users [24] & [25]. The edit summaries look quite educated, but if you look at the actual edits on the page, they're very ignorant. Any help you or other admins can give to this page, which for some reason seems to attract odd vandals (or perhaps just the same one over & over). Ellin Beltz ( talk) 23:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Elen, please don't give up, 'cos you have friends ... and the English muffin article is still patiently awaiting your visit. Really. Politics is poo but editing is good. Best wishes 82.45.217.156 ( talk) 11:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I begin to think that the user, 90.202.58.225 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be Anthony Weights ( talk · contribs). Look at Cheers (season 4) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) What shall I do? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Elen, I know you're not terribly active, but on the other hand, I probably know you better than other active checkusers, so I'll bug you first. Do I understand correctly that a CU can tell whether or not one account sent another account an email thru the WP interface? Not the contents, but the fact that the email was or was not sent. In a case where one user says another user sent them a harassing email, and the other user denies sending any emails at all, would a CU be willing to check this? Not asking for the check yet; still hoping the one not telling the truth comes clean without the check. But I'm inclined to block the liar indefinitely if he doesn't come clean, whichever one it turns out to be. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
You deleted some sourcing that I did on this topic and you claimed that my sources were "poor"-a National database of paranormal research? Also you closed the topic to anyone but admin. for one week. Wow-I'm not impressed. Over-use of power and for a completely power-abuse reason. That is not what admin. status is for you know? 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Elen, I am happy to see that your edit count is gradually climbing again. Without getting into the merits of your recent Arbcom controversy, I must say that I have always known you to be a circumspect and conscientious administrator, and Wikipedia would be a poorer organization if you were to abruptly lay down your tools, vanish, or fade into semi-retirement. There is a place for you and role for you to fill, and I hope you continue to do so. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
— ΛΧΣ 21 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
So after the whole fiasco I was asked to go edit elsewhere. I looked at your profile and saw Dry glue. I noticed the first sentence is written in an odd way, and the revision history says you wrote it. So I figured your opinion was the best on the subject. It originally read
I changed it to
alternatively, you could even write the same sentence as
It kind of becomes potatoe potato at that point. I personally think keeping the words foot and adaptation next to each other is a better idea, because the adhesive is specifically developed from the foot adaptations and not general gecko adaptations (such as a knee adaptation that assists in climbing.) Also, if we are being completely pedantic, the entire gecko climbs the wall, not just their feet. So my first sentence should be the better of the two. But between the last two, it's a horse a piece and not even worth debating.
First I questioned whether the sentence should use which or that. If you don't know the difference, it's pretty clearly explained here.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/which-versus-that.aspx I switched from which to that, to make the second half of the sentence a restrictive clause instead of a nonrestrictive clause. This was to reduce the chance of reading the sentence in a nonsensical way. Nonrestrictive clauses can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence, restrictive clauses cannot. Removing the phrase "which allow them to climb sheer surfaces" drastically changes the meaning of the sentence. That is more appropriate than which. It makes the sentence more clear and easier to read (even in a subliminal way, few people would ever consciously notice.)
Then I removed the oxford comma after surfaces for the exact same reason which becomes that. With the comma "and even glass walls" could apply to the earlier clause, causing the reader to accidentally read the sentence as "Dry glue is a method of adhesion based upon the naturally occurring adaptations of geckos feet and even glass walls." By removing the oxford comma "and even glass walls" only applies to the phrase "climbing sheer surfaces". A native English speaker might be unlikely to get confused, but to others, the sentence can easily be read to mean that dry glue is based on the adhesion properties of glass walls. Glass is not an adhesive. Removing the comma makes the sentence more clear and less ambiguous. As a bonus, by removing the oxford comma and swapping which to that, it allows us to remove the first comma too. The entire sentence can be constructed with no commas. Yay!
Then I noticed "adaptations of the feet of geckos which allow them to." 10 word, 3 prepositions, 3 nouns, 2 pronouns, 1 article, and 1 verb. It creates all sorts of odd possible interpretations. Does "them" refer to the geckos feet or adaptations themselves? Is there a difference? Sort of. I tried to reconstruct the phrase to remove any ambiguous interpretations. Thus, "adaptations of the feet of geckos that allow them to" became "foot adaptations that allow geckos to". The change removes one of two pronouns and two of three prepositions completely. In my opinion, the changes create a sentence with only one interpretation. The phrase now has 3 nouns, 1 pronoun, 1 verb, and 1 preposition, and it definitively makes sense. Much better, right?
Since you are the person who initially wrote the sentence, I defer judgement to you. Do you think, after hearing why I changed the sentence, it is more, or less, clear? I really didn't want to stick around, but enough people politely said to give it a try. I figured I would listen to the experts for once. I made a small edit on an unrelated page. The editor I had a conflict with is now following me around and reverted the changes I made, on completely unrelated pages. The only reason I even found the page was because of your userpage. I don't like having every decision I make undermined and undone, especially as some part of an ill conceived revenge plan. If this keeps happening, there is no way I can keep contributing. Who in their right mind has enough time to continually justify even the most mundane actions? There is no question in my mind the revert occurred as a prejudice against me, because in my eyes the change is absolutely an improvement. Is his second guessing of everything I do just a way to derive pleasure from torturing me? Is creating a new account to escape stalking the best course of action? I can't even reintroduce my improvements without starting an edit war. No dialogue between us has been very constructive. Both of us are at fault for that one. Clearly he didn't put as much thought into the sentence as I did because ALL my changes were reverted, sans two links he put back. At the very least the oxford comma should be removed, and which changed to that. But, my removal of the other comma, a pronoun and prepositions, is what I see as an obvious improvement. "Of the feet of geckos which" has 2 prepositions and a pronoun in six words and a third preposition three words later. It has 2 pronouns in three words (which allow them.) Doing those kinds of things make sentences hard to read. It causes the reader to have to go back and read the sentence a second time. Back when I was a kid we were taught to cut the clutter. Reduce sentences to their basic elements. I will admit, maybe I overlinked one word, feet. That seems like a judgement call. If we are talking about the evolution of gecko feet, I would think a link to feet is handy. I still think I was right to link it, but if someone else didn't, I would have no problem with the link being reverted. I even put what I thought were really good explanations in the comment box describing why I made the changes. Is this guy going to follow me around wikipedia and revert everything I do. Is participating anywhere at all futile? Why bother? My entire reason for treating this as a cup half empty situation was because no matter how small of a chance you make, it gets reverted and you have to write a paragraph justifying your thoughts. And when you do justify your thoughts, they fall on deaf ears because people prefer
Newspeak to actual communication. We are becoming a place where anything more than a sentence or two is glossed over and ignored. I am more than glad to fix oddly constructed sentences here and there, but I don't want to constantly justify every little comma and pronoun change. I can't believe I just wrote this much about a 29 word sentence. Normally I would put this on the talk page, but a) you wrote the sentence, asking for your thoughts directly is best b) Rob self admittedly wont read walls of text anyway and c) it's more of an issue with the aforementioned user than the constituent construction itself. If you think any of my improvements are justified would you look into reinstating some or all of them? Or at least us my observations to construct a more coherent sentence? This is way above me caring about gecko feet. I just want to be left alone to edit in peace. (If you can't tell, my stream of consciousness probably violates all the editing tips I suggest. You can't win them all.)
Xkcdreader (
talk) 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Free Wales Now! what did I screw up? 15:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen, You were right the first time, HackneyHound was an account I created many moons ago. And yes it was operated on a vodafone network. Gravyring was not a sock of mine but my housemate, who I roped in, not sure if thats meat puppetry as we shared a bathroom at the time. So all of the sock cases against Hackneyhound are all different users, potentially innocent or just those using their phone or 3g tablet to avoid a block as I did. But Hackneyhound, I have not used since blocking so any of those blocked related to my account should be revised maybe. Factocop ( talk) 11:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
@HK, don't think so. My main focus was troubles esque such as Londonderry, City of Derry Airport, Giants Causeway, Carlingford Lough etc.
I have nothing to gain from this and I have not breached my sanctions, just so were clear Other accounts not in timely order: HackneyHound Afterlife10 NI4Life Homebirdni CodSa DameEdnaUK AttackZack (I'm a saved by the bell fan) Pilgrimsquest
...a few more but can't remember off top of my head.
Factocop (
talk) 15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thats all I can remember, but feel free to point out any... Factocop ( talk) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
@highking, no not levenboy. Don't think we've collaborated on anything either. @Luke, youre late to the party. I already served 2 yrs for socking and was allowed to edit under sanctions. Factocop ( talk) 19:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
People, take some advice from an old Wikipedian - NEVER trust a sock-master & keep all of his suspected socks blocked. GoodDay ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
[39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. Factocop ( talk) 10:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Bull-Doser has created today a new account that inserted the same content that got him blocked in October. [48].
Right now, I'm about to leave the house out and don't have time to fill SPI. I'll deal with that later. But in the mean time, you can just have a quick look at it even if you decide to not take actions. Bye. Farine ( talk) 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Aaron Schwartz (Canadian actor):
Is there a way to find out? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This should prove that GabeMc is getting harrassed. Will this give him full rights to rid WP of all content dispute editors against him forever?. I am providing the means for him to accompish this, right here.
You are a bitch but we still love you!
BTW: When that POS WER section of domineering crap learns that banning everybody will stop editors from quitting they will have learnt something. Dennis should know better. Is running WP into the ground by design or happenstance? Most of its members have the attitude.
Have a good one!! 200.79.224.72 ( talk) 22:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I created a request of editor review on me. Just to let you know. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I sent you an e-mail last week ... did you ever get it? ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 00:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen, just a quick heads-up to let you know that I've listed IP 168.94.245.6 at WP:OPP, since they're contesting the proxyblock you actioned in November. Cheers, Yunshui 雲 水 08:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Other contributors of note include:
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E ( submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This thread on your Meta talk page from November, 2012 was mentioned. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, absolutely nothing will be done against this tenditious editor![ [51]]
It appears donating money to WP will allow an editor unlimited rights above everybody else like a paid for, God mode.
How far will WP go to support itself, in its failing venture, even if it means losing ALL it's up and coming new editors due to unfair, nonsensical, disciplinary practices?
Block me. IP's are cheap and ruining WP anyway (sarc). Soon only IPs will edit here.
RipWikipedia? No 200.79.224.72 ( talk) 22:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
A Daily Mail Online article, “ Gunman Hoax That Forced MIT to Go On Lockdown Was REVENGE for Suicide of Reddit Co-Founder Aaron Swartz,” is cited as a secondary source at Aaron Swartz: Attacks, hacks and hoaxes.
Another reported that … the first public alert did not go out until 8:47am; ‘Not so timely,’ he observed.[151]
The Mail article gives the reporting person’s name: “John Hawkinson.”
Another Twitter user John Hawkinson wrote that … the first public alert did not go out until 8.47am. ‘Not so timely,’ he wrote.
A User:Jhawkinson is listed as a frequent contributor to the Swartz article in WP.
487 edits on article: Aaron_Swartz. Frequent users: Dervorguilla; David in DC; …; Jhawkinson; …
Are Jhawkinson and John Hawkinson the same person? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope she's [Dervorgulla's] incorrect. Because if she is, outing an editor calls for a ban.
Happy ending. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 01:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen. Hope you're well. Are you still subscribed to Oversight-l? If so, please urgently search your inbox for messages with the subject line beginning [Oversight-l] [URGENT]
. The first message was sent on 2 March, and at the time of my writing this the newest message in the thread was also sent later on 2 March. All that's needed from you is one signature on the OTRS wiki, and the sooner the better. If you aren't subscribed to Oversight-l, please e-mail ArbCom or one of the more active oversighters (Beeblebrox or Fluffernutter might be a good choice) to find out what we need you to do. Thanks very much,
AGK
[•] 20:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
In the past years, I had very little interest in improving Wikipedia. In fact, I've hurt people more than I did not intend, and I was a fanatic deletionist. However, since I was unblocked with mentorship agreements, I thought I could do anything I want, but then I realize there is more to helping the cause than just stand there and do nothing except nominating for deletion. In fact, I have to reluctantly agree with terms, and so far I have interests in improving pages about topics more than just deleting material. Lately, I have requested renaming of Chandra Levy, and I created season pages, like Cheers (season 6), and improved Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal.
However, I haven't used User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions for half a year (or something like that) because I no longer have interest in recklessly requesting deletion on things that need a lot of improvement. Neverthless, I think that List of Curb Your Enthusiasm directors must go. Lately, I've not been receiving replies. I would hope that the page is in your watchlist, isn't it? I wonder if you want to continue as my mentor. If not, then surely I can find your replacement if necessary.
Note: This post is intended for only active and semi-active people. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Rs chen 7754 07:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You probably recall this editor. Last March you unblocked him and later blocked him. When you unblocked him he was denying sock puppetry. Looks like he was lying. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson - he started his Nasorean sock in February. I hate it when I AGF and get bitten, don't you? Dougweller ( talk) 22:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
... in this query, as Fram has reverted User:Peter Damian back to the "scarlet letter" state. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC).
A discussion which relates to actions or comments made by you can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Peter Damian socks. Fram ( talk) 15:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
FWIW regarding this and this, please see here. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You elucidated me on Check User, and I quoted it here. Also: I miss you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I see you have not edited in over three weeks. I hope that the fact that the community made appalling mistakes in the past election has not caused you to abandon us.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Elen,
You were able to help me with a copyright question about three years ago (thank you very much), so I turn to you again with two other questions. First: I would like to upload to Wiki Commons a photo of a poster by Adolphe Willette for the pantomime L'Enfant prodigue by Michel Carré fils (1890). Unfortunately, Willette's date of death was February 4, 1926, which seems to prohibit free use of the image. But does it make a difference that the poster was reproduced in Ernest Maindron's Les Affiches illustrées (1886-1895) in Paris in the year 1896 (this would be my photographic source)?
My second question concerns a theater poster: I acquired a photo of it from the New York Public Library at Lincoln Center. The poster is undated and unsigned (though it seems to bear the name "J. Morgan & Co., U.S.A." in faint script bottom-right). It advertises a pantomime, Superba, by the Hanlon-Lees, that played only in North America from October 1, 1890, to April 22, 1911. I'm fairly certain I have free use of the image--but how do I go about dealing with questions about its authorship, date, and so on?
I'm very grateful for whatever help you can give me. Beebuk 10:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Elen of the Roads! I have found that you have oversight tools. I would like to ask you to oversight this statement, because it is constantly used by others to attack, denigrate, harass and provoke wikipedian Russavia, like here, for example. -- Seleucidis ( talk) 11:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A matter you helped resolve, for a time, is heating up again. Would you please review this talk page thread and see if you think I'm out of line? Or if anyone else is. I think it's someone else, but a review of my edits is probably necessary as well. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated the article G5 (Universities) for deletion, but I am not sure whether I have completed all the steps, and wondered if you may be able to help as an admin/experienced user. thanks Hkong91 ( talk) 00:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I have found a hoax region "Upstate California" with which the creating User_talk:Ikluft#No_govt_rivalry user seems to be emotionally and personally involved. I am unable to verify that the economic entity on that page is real. I have lived in this area since 2001, I have never heard the term used for any part of California except by the "Upstate Economic Development" group which is being promoted on this wiki page even though it is not one of the legally constituted Economic Development groups in the region. I am unable to find that the term is in any form of wide-spread use other that for the mentions given on that page. I have read several of the documents from end to end and I still don't find this to be of much importance, other than to the people who are promoting it - and promoting themselves. A simple Google search turns up 3 things: Wiki page, Forum of "whoever heard of Upstate California" and the website of the UED, which has very little on it. I don't think many pages link to this page, mostly because it's not a real entity in this part of Northern California which is usually referred to as the "Northstate" region as correctly stated on the Northern California wikipage. Looking forward to any assistance you can render with this person and their self-promotion. With best wishes, Ellin Beltz ( talk) 17:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Elen of the Roads
Thanks Wehwalt, if Elen of the Roads has been "driven off" I suppose there is no need for further comments on this page. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen. I hope everything is okay. You've been inactive for several months, so I've dropped you an e-mail with the usual advance warning that your CU/OS permissions will be revoked if you continue to be missing from Wikipedia. Please let us know soon if you intend to return at some point in the near future. AGK [•] 10:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope you decide to come back sometime. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Elen, Hope you come back, or are still here somewhere under a new name. We miss your generous spirit and willingness to aid those in need. Hope this is just a temporary hiatus, and we all wish you well in whatever endeavors you are pursuing. Rosencomet ( talk) 15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face; the rains fall soft upon your fields and until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of His hand.
NE Ent 01:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen,
We have sent you a number of emails about this, but I wanted to post this on-wiki note as well. The Arbitration Committee has removed your CheckUser and Oversight access for inactivity. If you return one day and wish to regain the tools, well, I'm sure you know the procedure for doing even better than I do. Best, NW ( Talk) 18:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, as you were the last admin to block him for violating his editing restrictions. postdlf ( talk) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Just dropping by to get you to run for ArbCom and I see you've up and gone. It is a pity for all of us... Best wishes to you in Life After The Circus. —Tim //// Carrite ( talk) 08:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Recently, User:Oriole85 ( contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps ( contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 ( talk) 05:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
civility
Thank you for your answers to my questions about our
respect for editors as living persons, for your
illustrations of "fishy" with "
grace under fire", for a
flavoured tea, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (22 November 2009)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 332nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, now we miss you. I entered you in my list of answers from the candidates, knowing that you would have looked at the facts and told a colleague who didn't, with your flavour of kindness, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Two years now: looking at what some said about a "gender gap", you are missed even more. Promising answers by new candidates who didn't mention gender, but common sense ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Six years now, and remebered, and much missed, see? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
seven, and remembered -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Elen, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) I hope you're still out there visiting Wikipedia frequently, (though not editing) hopefully you might return some day eventually. Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I see Elen has been added to the Missing Wikipedians category. Anyone know what happened? -- B2 C 01:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
B2c, I assume you are just as capable as the rest of us at checking page histories and following links if you want to know what happened with this or any other kerfuffle on Wikipedia. It's all there if you care to look, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to spoon-feed links to you upon request. Having said that, I agree with S Philbrick that it's not unreasonable to want to know (I've certainly wasted spent innumerable hours researching various dramahs—sometimes in an effort to better understand Wikipedia's conflicts and see where their participants are coming from, sometimes just out of morbid curiosity, i.e., human nature), and I don't see that "decency" has anything to do with it. And having said that, I'll also say this: my concern, and the reason I jumped into this thread, is that I'd hate to see old wounds reopened to no good purpose. People may legitimately hold different interpretations of what happened with Arbcom in late 2012, but I'd hope we can all agree that it serves no good purpose to restart the dramah again here and now. Since Elen is no longer a functionary, even the people who disagreed with her actions have no legitimate reason to resume their complaints about her now. So please, let's not go over old ground again.
Rivertorch (
talk) 23:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll start a new section accordingly.
I still don't get the "offered tea to the wrong person" reference. I see an offer of tea to Elen on this page, but nothing about her offering tea to anyone. -- B2 C 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads ceased editing in March 2013 without posting any sort of explanatory statement. We should respect her privacy and not post speculation as to the reasons for that -- quite simply, it is not our story to tell. NE Ent 11:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 2/19/2014. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. -- JMatthews (WMF) ( talk) 06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 00:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. – xeno talk 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Elen, I don't know whether you will read here again, nor whether you will ever choose to return to Wikipedia, but I miss your editing and your administrating, and do hope you will choose to be back again someday. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Elen. May I ask of you why you blocked me back in the end of 2011? Did I do something awfully destructive? If I did do something, then what did I do? Here are some things.
If there is any dissent, please say it. I would be very appreciated if you could tell me what I did that was so harmful to the project. Thank you for your everything you do and have done.
(Oh, and by the way, I go to college/tertiary education now.)
Regards, - Porchcorpter 10:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This one says "meow", surprisingly. All the best,
Drmies (
talk) 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! | |
Hello Elen of the Roads, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Surely you are interested in this: [52]
And let me copy here my last comment there to introduce the situation:
" 'Let me summarize here what the last admin discovered and stated on 2012¡: Ratel but using the sockpuppet Jabbsworth plead to ARBCOM to be unblocked promising he will never use sockpuppets and openly mentioned to ARBCOM three sockpuppets (RxWatch, OzOke, and Hill-Mitchelson) he was using. On 2012 admin User:Elen of the Roads noticed that Jabssworth never mentioned but hid to ARBCOM that he was also Ratel, and he never mentioned but also hid that he was Ticklemeister. User:Elen of the Roads also discovered and noticed that he was also using another sockpuppet (Medic58), that he also kept hid during his last and all the previous SPI and also hid it to ARBCOM. So he was clearly breaching his promises to ARBCOM, deceiving them and the users, plus dishonoring his own words. That was the kind of disruptive behaviour that was sanctioned by User:Elen of the Roads by re-establishing the block that ARBCOM had forgiven to Jabssworth. Now since 2013 up to now, Ratel using JabbaTheHot evaded that last block, breaks his promises, he is caught and blocked again some days ago and you say that is a clean start, that he is not being distruptive and therefore he deserves to be unblocked again? " -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
for having a awesome userpage | |
this is a awesome userpage Dfrr ( talk) 20:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC) |
Thought of you today - and just noting that you are missed. Hope all is well in your world Elen. — Ched : ? 18:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Your day of precious remembered, with another kitten, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
... remembered again, five years, and missed. Your talk is still a source of inspiration, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 01:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
On 20 October 2012 you indefinitely blocked SNIyer12 ( talk · contribs · count) an editor who contributed 61,233 edits to wikipedia and had been active since 3 April 2005. Where can I find the background of the blocking of this editor. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
The file File:Watchlist with green stars.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Old orphaned esoteric file.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Watchlist showing italic used to highlight unread pages.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Old orphaned esoteric file.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Watchlist with stars and bold.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Old orphaned esoteric file.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
We miss you. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Star Trek sequel. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled Star Trek sequel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. You are remembered and missed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
This user may have left Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads has not edited Wikipedia since 20 March 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
If you are an admin and are here about a block I have made, feel free to lift or amend if the situation has changed, miscreant has repented, consensus is now against block etc. Please let me know you have done so. Thanks. |
|
Misspelled music festivals * 2009 * 2010(1) * 2010(2) * 2011(1) * 2011(2) * 2012(1) * 2012(2) * 2012(3) |
Hi, This is an old talk, I know : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_Van however your logic about the Van and the Angora cats (in Turkey) being the same breed is unusual to see, however you are right! Warm regards from Turkey, from a member of The Angora Cat Association.--Ankara Kedisi 07:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You're the second person I know of who's read the Lensman series. MSJapan ( talk) 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
907 mainspace edits. Nobody Ent 22:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick thanks for quick Oversighting. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 03:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You once mediated a similar infobox dispute. Can you be objective at Stephen H. Wendover as to whether the infobox is a distraction to the reader, or is helpful to the reader? Both arguments are valid and really more an issue of aesthetics, so a third opinion ... well, a fourth in this case, would be helpful. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I've dropped you a line. WormTT( talk) 16:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know some more MMA SPA's have shown up, for example Nurple is the New Purple ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Noahco ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) along with Jfgsloeditor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for which there is an open WP:ANI here. Mt king (edits) 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Nobody Ent 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You showed interest in the discussion at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover the other day. As an admin, could you look at this again? Mr. Norton is currently starting an edit war over the infobox, claiming consensus, although the discussion on the talk page IMO shows that there is none. Kraxler ( talk) 01:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I've noticed that the name of the first song off the album The Poison is wrong. The real name is "Intro", not "Intro ... My Lifestyle". I tried to change it, but there are two users who do not stop reverting my edits without consulting. So I've been involved in an edit war. An unregistered user changed back the name several times and he added a reference from Last.fm, but I think that is not a reliable source. Moreover, I have added some references to the talk page such as the official BFMV website, itunes, BBC and even a picture of the album.
This is so frustrating! I have that CD in my house (I bought it a few years ago because I was a big fan of Bullet For My Valentine) and I can read clearly that the name of the song is just "Intro". So I want to ask you to end this discussion. Thank you. Cristian MH ( talk) 13:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I already agreed to stop editing the track names, and even added more reviews to the reception section since the disbute ended. I have talked with the user on his and my talk page, and I haven't edited anything regarding the tracks since I told them I would stop. I wasn't even warned about an edit war, and I only reverted twice meaning I in no way violated the 3RR. I am requesting that you unblock me from editing The Poison as I did not violate any rules. TJD2 ( talk) 14:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with that; I figured after I posted this that it might be just locked, but wasn't sure as I don't ever log off Wikipedia. As I said, I'm done with the track name argument, and have been for a while. I agree with you about the constant updates. Thank you for addressing my concern. TJD2 ( talk) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear "Elen of the Roads"
I can't take this user's abuse anymore. If well intentioned editors can get harassed like this, I don't want to continue at Wikipedia. RobertRosen ( talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain more specifically why you struck out your vote?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The following policies/customs/practice apply here
Let's leave out the two sockmasters for the moment. Focus on the editors who have legitimate accounts.
IIf the users with legitimate accounts were doing nothing wrong, they shouldn't have been ibanned.
If Mathsci is equally bad in how he interacts with the legitimate accounts, a normal (two way) iban would have been the right remedy
If Mathsci was behaving well but the other editors included in the iban were engaged in following Mathsci around sniping, the other editors should have been blocked or tbanned for being disruptive.
If the other editors were trolling, they should have been blocked for trolling.
If they were supporting the trolling socks, they should have been blocked for that.
At the end of the day, a one way interaction ban would appear to be the wrong remedy, but I don't have enough processed data to decide what the right remedy is, so I struck my vote. It seems to me that the issue of trolling socks, and the issue of the behaviour of the legitimate editors, is getting conflated, but the remedies proposed are not dealing with that. What should have happened if Arbcom was not going to support the original AE sanction was an examination of the behaviour of all parties against the checklist above, to determine where all the behaviours fall. Since everything on Wikipedia becomes stale so quickly, I don't know if there is still the opportunity to do this. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
One more thing; users at the Call of Duty article keep reverting my work claiming they "don't need sources". They state the game Call of Duty: World at War is a part of the Call of Duty: Black Ops series, when in actuality although it is in the same universe, it is not in the same series. I've looked into this as well, and no sources support this claim. Nor have I ever heard COD1,2 and 3 reffered to as the "Original Trilogy". The way I see it without a source, these claims of WaW being in the Black Ops series are inaccurate. TJD2 ( talk) 22:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Nobody Ent 23:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Think there is a new one ..... 65 Edits Per Hour ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mt king (edits) 18:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't yet know when or if I will get to it, but I wanted you to know I added a comment of yours to my To-do list. In short, I'd like to see a procedure enabled to expunge a block from a block list, where the parties agree that the original block was in error. While some cases, such as your example, are clear-cut, the boundaries are tricky, so I'm not ready to propose until I'm ready to spend some time on it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
[12] - it shows that a block happened at a specific time but everything else is blocked out, at least for me. If I look at the revision specifically, I can see everything as an admin. (Don't worry, I'll undo this :) ) -- Rs chen 7754 00:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
FTR, I don't want it completely disappeared. I would like it if there were some record, somewhere, that includes all the blocks, even the inadvertent ones, to help make sure the system isn't gamed. But make it so that the block log easily viewable would contain only those that were in the oopsie category. I don't even want to remove those where many admins would say they wouldn't block in those circumstances, and the original blocking admin agrees it was a little overzealous. Leave that one there. I want to remove only those like the "Oops I thought it was an impersonator, don't I feel foolish", or "oh yeah, that comment was directed at you, not by you". Some of this is personal. I have a clean block log, plan to keep it that way, and would be royally pissed if someone accidentally blocked me. If I'm skating near the edge, and someone blocks me, even if many wouldn't that's on me. But if someone misreads a diff, or clicks the wrong button, I'd sure like it if that could be removed from the main block log, and I'd be happy that it remains in the longer record. I want to be able to say "I have a clean block log". I don't want to have to say, well, when you look at my block log, here's what you need to know..."-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
All block log entries should be expunged automatically by the software 6 months after the unblock, if the person isn't reblocked in that interval. There is entirely too much drama and long term conflict from people getting pissy about block logs. Giano was a mostly-sane editor until he melted down over a block, similarly Mbz1, Malleus, etc. If someone does something bad enough that it needs to be remembered longer than 6 months, then people will remember it, there will be discussion threads to point at, etc. What we have now is a moronic combination of kindergarten and Orwell: "this is going on your permanent record!!!" The book Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age ( ISBN 0691150362) looks very interesting. We do not need to memorialize all this stuff, just because we have enough computers to each be our own little FBI Records Division. 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 00:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Urgently required. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I wroting the response your complaint on ANI. -- B767-500 ( talk) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
what about Keep UFC Articles ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? Mt king (edits) 19:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
.....and another one gone, and another one gone...another one bites the dust! (although Black Kite was the one that got him) -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You might take notice of my discussion at User talk:Courcelles. I appreciate your open-minded and thoughtful consideration during what was/is obviously an uncomfortable situation. Of course, the decision is still entirely within the domain of ArbCom, but I felt the information may be of use to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen of the Roads. I am involved in an AFD discussion here that has gone strange. User:Qworty has struck my text and accused me of being the blocked paid editor Morning277. I see from the investigation here that you have recently been involved, so I was hoping you could assist. I'm a new editor and have made less than 20 edits to discussions. I've never edited an article. I'm happy to turn over my account for a user investigation. Can you please help? BeyondKneesReach ( talk) 04:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
to run for ArbCom again. It's a thankless task, and I'm certain it's a terrible timesink, but I'd feel better if you were running. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates#Elen_of_the_Roads
I was looking to see the denouement of the Kraxler ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but it is gone, I do not see it in the archives either. Can you find it for me? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to thank you for your comment to Qworty regarding the level of hostility in his/her interactions with me. You are quite right; there have been no real conflicts between me and other editors in the past 2-3 years. This recent attack on over 30 articles I've created and/or edited has been quite a shock, and I've bit my lip and tried not to react in kind. Whole reference sections and properly-constructed bibliographies have been deleted as "unsourced", then the articles have been nominated for deletion as "non-notable". I welcome any attention you can give to the issue (understanding that your comment did not mean you were taking sides or anything). Rosencomet ( talk) 19:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Louis Martinie, David Jay Brown, Luisah Teish, Patricia Monaghan, M. Macha Nightmare, Trance Mission, Matthew Abelson, Kenny Klein, Brushwood Folklore Center, Donald Michael Kraig, LaSara FireFox and Ian Corrigan.
Given the latest MtPrincess ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is there a range block that might help out ? Mt king (edits) 20:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Did you get to this [15]? NE Ent 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I promised to not post again on his talk page and I won't. But these two edits [16] [17] are concerning. I don't think he understands the message you posted two weeks ago that he cannot edit while he's blocked. Or maybe he thought he could legitimately edit with his old User:Take Me Higher account.
Contrary to what some people may think, I don't necessarily want Bull-Doser to stay blocked for eternity. It would be great to see Bull-Doser becoming a positive contributor someday. I think he has the potential to bring a lot to Wikipedia if only he would listen to others for a change instead of living in his world. But edits such as these two recent ones coupled with his lack of interaction with others makes me think that he's not ready yet to be back. Farine ( talk) 04:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Just because. St Anselm ( talk) 06:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
I was worried it wasn't going to happen. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to take a moment to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving! Rosencomet ( talk) 12:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This is to notify you that you have been named in a statement issued by the arbitrators not running for re-election, regarding the recent leaks from arbcom-l. If you have comments regarding the statement, please post them to the Arbitration Committee's Noticeboard talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Elen, please resign from the Arbcom and your adminship, effectively immediately. 24.61.9.111 ( talk) 07:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen!
Please just take it easy for a day. I trust that you had good reasons. My guess is that you wanted to warn the possible victims of leaks, having learned from previous leaking scandals the damages that can occur.
Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
If you resign over what is essentially fallout from the worst behaviour by an arbitrator I have ever seen, attempting to deflect attention from his own indefensible statements and actions, then I'll retire. Difference is - lots of people would miss you, and your enormous contribution. Begoon talk 13:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm at work at the moment. Give me till this evening to post a statement - the Arb statement (which I only saw an hour or so ago) isn't the full tale. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
[18]. Courcelles 20:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Can I first of all confirm that I have at no time ever disclosed any of the sensitive personal information that has been sent to the arbcom mailing list. The mailing list software distributes email sent to the list (it's not webmail). When I cease to be an arbitrator, I will dump that part of my email archive. There is no requirement for ex-arbs to do this, but any UK organisation that permitted ex-employees to retain sensitive personal data after they left would suffer legal consequences, so I believe it is the correct thing to do.
Second, can I confirm that I am not the person sending anonymous emails. If I particularly wanted Coren to see that piece of text, I would just have sent it to him. I don't know who is behind that.
What JClemens had said about what he would do when he ran for Arbcom was said as part of a rambling conversation between a number of committee members, which got round to Hobbes Leviathan at one point. It moved on to civility, and views from the recent case were rehashed. Following this, JClemens sent the email on his talkpage, indicating that he was going to ask candidates whether a particular statement by Malleus Fatuorum should have resulted in a ban and, if not, why not. As has been alluded to elsewhere, several Arbs indicated that it was not appropriate to send it to the list, it belonged off list.
What I did do is discuss it with a third party, in a private chat. I was worried that Malleus would react to the question with one of his anglo saxon epithets, and another request for a ban would ensue. People were asking me if I would stand again, I did not want to get involved in this, but I did not know what to do for the best. Yes, I was angry and used some unparliamentary language. And yes, I did reproduce the words as part of the discussion. To say 'at the upcoming election I am going to stand on this platform and ask this question'- it simply did not seem to me to be something that had been said under the seal of the confessional (an absolute guarantee of non-disclosure).
Eventually I concluded that I was over-reacting, and the community would reach it's own verdict, so I just put the note you can see higher up this talkpage.
The next thing I knew, people were apparently getting anonymous emails with the text on JClemens talkpage. Where I do consider I made a substantial error of judgement is not at that point reporting back to Arbcom immediately everything I had said. This was because the person I had confided in assured me they were not sending random emails (and I have no reason to think they were) and I did not want them to be subjected to the hassle they were eventually subjected to.
So that's what happened.
I understand the view of those who say that everything ever said on that list must be under the seal of the confessional. My view is that ultimately a closed list creates an 'us and them' mindset because you can't discuss things with anyone else, and there's no requirement for propriety. I've seen it on a lot of forums, and would prefer to see much better confidentiality for personal data, and less exclusivity in discussion. That said, this was not an attempt to dismantle the list.
I also understand the view of those who don't think it was the sin that cannot be forgiven, but still think it was a huge error of judgement and I'm a complete incompetent.
I also understand the view of those who don't think there is a huge problem, but wouldn't trust me
I refute wild speculation about how I'm going to go mad and publish loads of personal data.
I'll accept whatever happens next. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Confiding in one trusted person, on an issue that is apparently going public anyway, that involves no private data, is something I can't condemn you for. Trying to get my head around this.
If your confidante didn't share the full text of Jclemens's now-public post with anyone, and neither your confidante nor you sent the anonymous Gmails, then someone else with access to the arbcom list did. That was either another arb who coincidentally decided to widely publicise Jclemens's intentions - which is possible but improbable - or more likely another arb who learned that you had disclosed the email to a confidante and decided to make a scandal out of it.
Are you aware of this being discussed anywhere other than here and
Anthonyhcole ( talk) 04:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Strike my unhelpful speculation. 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask Elen a question. Roger Davies has indicated that there is a sliding greyscale in email communications with arbcom and between arbitrators. That evidently does not apply to sensitive personal data. There is no doubt in my mind that Elen can be completely trusted with that kind of sensitive and confidential data. The matters under discussion here, however, did not involve personal data, but an inappropriate use of arbcom-l as part of an election campaign. I have assumed that prior to the email addressed to Risker published on his talk page, Jclemens had sent a previous shorter email, also concerning ACE2012 and Malleus Fatuorum, to arbcom-l. If so, without mentioning names, had any arbitrators already objected to that previous email as being off-topic or inappropriate for the list before Jclemens sent the second email? Mathsci ( talk) 04:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thought you could use one of these!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks. Certainly could. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed all the crap your getting, maybe a cute kitten will cheer you up, if not you can always eat it. You got my vote BTW, I have always been of the opinion you are one of the better admins around here. Cheers.
Darkness Shines (
talk) 19:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Yum, kitten. Thanks. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you be willing or able to post the responses you gave to the Arbs on November 13th and November 25th respectively regarding the leak? I presume these are the dates where you acknowledged revealing details from the mailing list and I think it would be helpful to know what you specifically told the other Arbs regarding your communications with non-Arbs.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Elen: I wrote you a note above suggesting that you run again for arbitrator, and I have no regret now for having done so. When this recent brouhaha arose, I considered whether it would be best to vote for you or not in the current election, not because I have any doubt whatsoever about your discretion – which I do not – but simply because I wondered if your re-election might create a new ArbCom that was unable to be effective, given the actions taken by other arbs. In the end, I decided that it was best for the community that you be on the Committee, and that Jclemens not be, and I voted that way. We will see if other Wikipedians see things the way I have or not, but regardless of the outcome of the election, please know that at least one Wikipedian appreciates that you placed the good of the community above all else, and were willing to put yourself on the line. Best of luck to you, in the election and in all else. 10:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken ( talk • contribs)
Apologies for absence - had the most humongous migraine and been unable to look at a computer screen for two days.
To answer a few points:-
@Anthonycole - the party I talked to bundled up what I said and passed it to Nuclear Warfare, who promptly forwarded it to Sir Fozzie, who had it by the 13th and was asking about it. According to those who have seen it, what was sent to Coren was slightly different, and I have no idea who sent it. I would not like to speculate that it was another arbitrator, but the request to Coren to verify it by returning it to Arbcom suggests that it was not intended as a tip of but for other reasons.
@Mathsci - Risker and a couple of others had already attempted to shut the discussion down at an earlier stage, as it was in their opinion running completely off the rails. However, another member of the committee argued that there was no precedent for shutting down a discussion as Arbitrators could basically post however they felt led. One problem with this setup, where everything is as sacred as everything else, is that Arbitrators are free to post personal attacks or outrageous statements and there really is not a lot one can do about it.
@TDA and Elonka - it would make about a dozen emails but I will totally put my hands up and say that on the 13th I named the person I had spoken to. I had asked the person I had spoken to, and they said they had not sent any text to anyone, so I tried to protect them by saying (several times) that they did not have any verbatim text, but they did have all the details. This was plumb stupid, and I fully accept all condemnation for being plumb stupid.
I didn't send anything to Arbcom on the 25th. I sent the following message to SilkTork, saying I was going to put it on my talkpage when I got back home (I had no access to a pc at that point), and he forwarded it to Arbcom. I gather Arbcom got the details of what I had discussed with a third party by subjecting him to the "third degree" at some point prior to this.
As I referred to publically above, a couple of weeks ago another member of the committee posted what appeared to me to be an election manifesto to the main arbcom mailing list. As you can see above I disagreed with what he said In fact, I was bloody angry. I viewed it as low politics and was particularly concerned that it would have a very bad impact on a third party who hadn't signed up to be part of it. As such, mentioned it to a couple of people and discussed it in more detail with a friend (ranted at him about it would be nearer to mark, to be honest. I wouldn't score any civility points).
The situation is being compounded because someone else (I have honestly no idea who) is apparently sending the text of what I referred to as the election manifesto to some of the candidates using throwaway email accounts. No idea what the point of that is, it seems very childish to me. If I'd intended to advertise it, I'd have posted it on my talkpage. All it said (in several paragraphs - it was a political speech) is that he was disappointed that the current committee did not back his stance on civility, he wants to see a future Arbcom that backs his concept of civility, he intends to make that his platform, and he feels very strongly that the community supports him on this.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy says that Arbitrators should preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations and the Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties. However, Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Communications_and_privacy states that Arbitrators usually seek to treat your communications, including emails, as private when possible. We however cannot guarantee against public disclosure for a number of reasons, including potential security limitations. Accordingly, you should not disclose sensitive personal information in your communications with us. Once received, your communications may be shared with committee members and, in some limited cases, with third parties to assist in resolving issues or other purposes. Your communications may be kept for an undetermined period of time for archival or other reasons. So if you are an individual, you don't actually have a guarantee of privacy.
It is the view of some members of the Committee that everything an Arbitrator ever sends to that email address - bad jokes, gossip, laundry lists - is under the seal of the confessional and can never be repeated or referred to elsewhere. I do accept that some people will feel quite strongly that what is said in confidence should remain in confidence. Some will feel that what I did (talking it over with someone) was entirely beyond the pale and means I can never be trusted again. Personally, I think that far stricter confidentiality than that email list is required where personal data is being handled, but by and large the deliberations of the committee should be in public unless there is a privacy issue. Where this leaves election manifestos, bad jokes, gossip and laundry lists is anyone's guess.
As to why I haven't resigned. Well, some of what I said above is actually important. Arbcom have already acknowledged that their mailing list system is not suitable for sensitive personal information, but continue to use it for that purpose. It sends your personal information to third party email inboxes, over which it has no control. Data can be kept forever by persons who no longer have any affiliation with the organization. There isn't even a requirement to delete your email archive when your term of office ends. There's a reason English local councillors all have official email accounts - so the Council can make sure the archive gets deleted when the councillor's term of office ends.
And did you know that if Arbcom sends you an email, you can't share it with anyone. That's part of what "Sent by a committee member in the performance of their duties" means, and there have been fireworks repeatedly when someone has posted an email that an Arbitrator sent to them.
And a closed list where members can say what they like without fear of consequence because nobody can say anything elsewhere is ultimately corrosive. There is no reason to extend protection to every petty comment, every off the wall statement, every personal attack. Because that's what is being protected. Not sensitive personal data. Not state secrets. For goodness sake, this isn't NATO, it's dispute resolution. Why do we have this institution in the first place, this sooper seekrit list that people are terrified of. Let's get the personal information somewhere other than fired into random mailboxes, and get the discussion out in the open. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Pony! | |
Hugs! For your patience and professionalism with the current situation, exhibiting grace under fire, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
Awww. I always wanted a pony. No danger of speeding on a pony:) -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Elen of the Roads. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
The Survivor Award | ||
Escaping extrajudicial execution | ||
motion declined NE Ent 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)} |
I have to admit that at first glance that thing looked like some particularly old-fashioned kind of toilet. At least it isn't the Halifax Gibbet. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The arbitration motion regarding you has been archived as not passing. For the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen.
It looks to me like somebody used a private list inappropriately (which bothered you), you discussed it with a friend (which is what friends are for), your friend spread it around without your intent or consent (aargh!), and your hobby suddenly became a lot less fun (at least for the present).
If that's what happened, you absolutely have my sympathy and moral support. I also commend your cool-headedness thus far in response to it! -- SB_Johnny | talk✌ 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen, I'm still trying to decide whether to support you in the ArbCom election, and wonder if I might ask a couple of questions...
Thanks for taking the time to respond. EdChem ( talk) 02:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I am the editor who posted the questions above; I have removed the IP address from which they were posted. EdChem ( talk) 07:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If you are re-elected, what action(s) do you plan to take on the issue of inappropriate use of the mailing list by arbitrators?
What changes will you advocate for arbitration policy relating to mailing list misuse, confidentiality, and disclosure?
In the (admittedly unlikely) event that both you and JClemens are re-elected, how will you go about working together?
Suppose another situation occurred in which an arbitrator posted inappropriately to the list on a topic where the community arguably has a right to know. I refer to a post where disclosure would not violate the privacy of any editor and where the comments made are inconsistent with an arbitrator carrying out her or his duties. How would you handle this situation?
Relating to your recent actions, I am much more disturbed by your misleading your colleagues when asked about the leak than I am about seeking the counsel of a friend. Voting for an arbitrator involves trusting in his or her judgment and whilst I accept that you would not have disclosed personal confidential information, I am concerned that you were unwilling to be fully open about your actions. Please explain to me why I should vote in support of you continuing to serve on ArbCom.
Elen, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful and informative responses. I would like to ask one follow up, if I may. In response to my first question, you advocate closing down the present mailing list as it is unsuited to handling genuinely confidential information - which I think is an excellent idea, but it wasn't the intent of my question. So, suppose the truly confidential material is moved to a secure storage medium. I presume there would still need to be some off-wiki communication channel for arbitrators. How would you like policy to handle the issue of inappropriate use of that channel by arbitrators? EdChem ( talk) 05:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC) PS: If you like, I'd be willing to copy and paste my questions and your answers over to your candidate questions page.
The Original Barnstar | ||
"For bringing such preposterous behavior to light..." I just finished saying my piece on Jimmy Wales' user page and it occurred to me that I was right! Anonymity is only necessary on wiki to protect people physically or financially — it is not meant to provide carte blanche for threats and backstage bullying. In your next term, actively work to end the veil of secrecy around ArbCom deliberations. Carrite ( talk) 16:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. If elected I will work for better protection for the information handled by Arbcom that can affect people in real life, and greater transparency in the decision making processes. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
* <- that's a really cheap barnstar.
Hi Elen.
It seems that the older I get, the more I'm reminded on a daily basis how precious our time is in this reality. I think it is so sad that so much time is expended in railing against other people; and often people we will never have the chance to meet in real life. I hope you'll forgive me this rant on your talk page, but it's something of a cathartic exercise for me. I truly admire your honesty, your integrity, and your kindness. You are a good person. You have a good heart. I wanted to tell you that. I wish I would have told others that when I had the chance. You're good people Elen of the Roads, and I'm a better person for having read the things you've said. All my best to you and all you hold dear. — Ched : ? 09:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Elen, would you mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski? In your arguments for blocking PMA/JCS back in February, you included as one of the hints the use of semicolons in edit summaries. Having stumbled upon this move request, I personally don't have the slightest shadow of a doubt over who Wtshymanski ( talk · contribs) is. -- 78.35.235.104 ( talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You might like to be aware: that Wtshymanski does not approve of IP editors being able to edit Wikipedia. He also has a looong history of seldom crediting any other editor of acting in good faith and never an IP editor.
You may also care to read this. A second RfU is apparently in draft as I type. 86.145.244.183 ( talk) 14:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Months later: how long does something like this [19] have to hang around? Every few weeks the spinner lands on my name and I get threatened with some kind of "partly constructed RFC/U" gobbletygook. I'm baffled as to what triggered this latest go around. Since you've been helpful in the past, I'm appealing to you to explain to me what's going on. I don't understand any of these people. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 14:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Please review the very short history this user has had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 and determine if Administrative intervention is appropriate. I have tried to explain to the user the policies, yet they do not wish to debate in Wikipedia's rules. Hasteur ( talk) 19:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Mmm... yeah. I may have got a little carried away, but basically I meant what I said. I expect it's time to move db's RFA to her userspace, or what do you think? Incidentally, you might like to check out this cool screenshot of the main page on a certain date a couple of centuries ago. Ah, fame. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC).
I did reply this morning (USA - Eastern time). Again - sorry for being such a grump. I know you've been through a lot, and I shouldn't have added to it. — Ched : ? 01:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised you are standing again for arbcom after your recent record. I refer to the following instances, which are just those I know about and come to mind:
There have been worse abuses by other arbitrators, but I think that is enough to suggest that you should not be standing.
I urge you to withdraw.
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC).
For the above, Elen I was under the impression that there was still a little time left to run on the elections. I would still urge you to stand down if elected.
Having just seen the tip of the iceberg of the recent imbroglio, I can see you were in a cleft stick, and it appears that your actions were not completely at odds with good whistle-blowing ethics. Having been on the receiving end of the apparatchiks actions, as you know, I can sympathise with what you have been going through. I have been concerned with the abuse of the email list for some time, particularly as the committee has failed in it's legal and ethical obligations regarding this data, and the historical leaked emails show the committee in a bad light, regarding anyone with a good grasp of English as "pompous" for example.
Chin up and get editing.
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC).
civility
Thank you for your answers to my questions about our
respect for editors as living persons, for your
illustrations of "fishy" with "
grace under fire", for a
flavoured tea, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (22 November 2009)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I wouldn't normally ask a personal-experience-type question of another editor, but I was so excited by your edit that I have cast caution aside: are you actually British or British-resident or British-visiting (OtherNationalitiesAndLocalitiesMayApplyNoConclusionIsHereinImpliedYourMileageMayVaryAlwaysReadTheInstructions), and have personally consumed muffins in their BrE non-cakey variety and in the AmE "English muffin" species? If so I think I might faint with pure joy. :) That article is depressing me far beyond what should be possible in writing about small breadlike objects... Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 09:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Mt king (edits) 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar ( talk) 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for letting me know about the botched edit. When I hit "save page", I bet there were a few others working on their own and thus it wiped out theirs. I decided to let my outdated comment go and latch onto the current discussion. Thanks again. ( DefGrappler ( talk) 03:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC))
Elen, over a year ago you courtesy blanked and protected the pages of PD, and deleted the sockpuppet categories. This was done with the understanding that he would stop all socking. See e.g. this version of your user talk page, where you promised that " The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Wikipedia - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim." He has since socked quite a few times, the latest one apparently being User talk:Hestiaea [21]. Could you please unblank / undelete all his pages and the sock cats, so that the inevitable future unban discussions get the full picture instead of the courtesy blanked one? Thanks! Fram ( talk) 11:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I contact you as you took part in the discussion on Penyulap's talk page concerning the Ombudsman committee matter. I've started some proposals and discussion on meta about how best to reform the OC to fix the issues it currently has and I would be very grateful if you could drop by and voice your opinion at m:Ombudsman commission/reform proposals. Snowolf How can I help? 12:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Dear Elen, I just want to say Thank you for being there to help people and being one of the best Arb's ever! Your Positive dedication and Priceless contributions are a big part of what makes Wikipedia more enjoyable and easy to use for all ~ For now, all I can say is "Keep It Up" :-) TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
blushes -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer ( talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that you're not there, Elen, as I certainly voted for you. You have always talked a lot of sense. Who will keep the "big boys" in check now, I wonder? But enjoy your break from all the grief. Regards. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I might even get to y'know...edit some articles :) Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur ( talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Most welcome, thank you :) Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I try as much as possible to avoid the underside of Wiki (drama boards and such), but I did appreciate your willingness to stand up for what you thought was right regarding the whole mailing list issue. You had my vote...guess it wasn't enough, though. Intothat darkness 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar of phronesis | |
Thanking your for your wisdom, decisiveness, and kindness. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
I am truly honoured. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You know, you could've just not run instead of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with the arbcom-l screwup? Regardless, my respect for the hard work, insight and good judgement you've added to the committee the past couple years remains unchanged. NE Ent 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I should be doing the congratulations, depending on how you look at it :) It has been a pleasure serving with you; hopefully we'll see Each other on wiki in less fraught circumstances. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work on ArbCom. Losing elections sucks, but you can take solace that you received the 4th most "For" votes of that big slate. Good luck with your future endeavors on WP now that you're free at last... Carrite ( talk) 21:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Home-Made Barnstar | ||
You showed honour and integrity in how you dealt with the whole "civility" shitburst. Just as my confidence in Arbcom reached an all-time low, you were there to shore it up. I am sorry you are leaving the thought police but perhaps you are better off out of it. Best wishes, and thanks for being you. John ( talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks | |
Thanks for all your hard work, Shearonink ( talk) 23:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
[22] - although it's an odd one to pick, as there's a massive discussion between myself and Rich that follows the link, and it's clear it's not a personal attack, even though I'll hold my hands up and say for the umpteenth time it was thoughtlessly offensive to people with OCD.
Ex Arbs are normally allowed to retain the checkuser bit - I'm waiting for her to start demanding that be removed as well, plus I expect my admin tools, and a siteban as a final outcome :) Ah, happy days. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I apologise to all for this bit of a grizzle. Rich and others are right, there are more constructive things to be going at :) Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to restore Penyulap's talk page access so they can participate in the active discussion there about the ombudsman commission, currently a game of telephone. May I take it from your earlier comments there you'd be fine with that? Regards, – SJ + 02:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
sorry Rich, I do this rarely, but I'm getting sick of your continuous barracking on behalf of Penyulap
|
---|
|
—
ΛΧΣ
21 is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— ΛΧΣ 21 05:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Bringing giftwrapped Chocolate Bishzilla for little nominator, omnomnom! Careful you don't get in the way of my cool santa hat morning star, seasonal replacement for biting! Just to keep everybody on their toes! darwinbish BITE 23:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC).
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey Elen! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.
Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Strange how someone I consider a font of humane jollity could poll so divisively—a result that in no way reflects how helpful you are to this community. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Is [ this] called WP:Pointy, not WP:AGF, WP:Hounding, WP:Harrassment, no WP:Collaboration or WP:Canvassing or WP:LynchMob? Read down to the bottom and follow a few links to see how this volatile editor is being wound up. Find some excuse and try to ignore it! Yeah, I may be an IPSockpuppet (see your Wtshymanski complaint above, what was your first fucking clue?) but you're such a bitch and I still love you! Self indeffing now :) 174.118.152.20 ( talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg | Have an enjoyable New Year! | |
Hello Elen of the Roads: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
New Year! Cheers,
Northamerica1000
(talk) 19:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
|
User 98.207.22.233 has been making a string of non-constructive edits to the project. After adding a non-notable uniquely named individual to various "People from ..." pages, edits were made to pages about a religion. First links to pages of things for sale from the uniquely named individual were added; after those edits were reverted, User 98.207.22.233 blanked the resources sections that contained links to books about the religion which appear on Amazon and WorldCat. Whatever you can do will be most gratefully appreciated. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 07:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Basically, the whole discussion is here [ [23]] now. TJD2 ( talk) 08:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I assume you are the "Elen" User:Rich Farmbrough is referring to on my talk page @ User talk:Brewcrewer#Sepsis II. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's a
toast to the
host | |
~ TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you Elen! Enjoy the Whisky ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the good wishes, chocolate, fish, whisky (particularly appreciated) and all else. I've not been around due to a combination of rushing around, determined relaxing, Caorunn, and a slow wave of lurgie passing through the family. Also, this place seems to have got at the cooking sherry and gone mad on Boxing Day, and I'm not sure it's recovered yet :). Still, I hope all of you had excellent holidays, whatever and however you celebrate them. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Your name was mentioned here. I'm not involved at all, just happened to notice that you weren't notified.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 14:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, and happy new year. As a recent Arbcom member I was wondering if you could take a quick look at WP:AN#Admin attention to an RFC/U, please and suggest whether from what you know about Arbcom an appeal is warranted. It is "only" 25,000 words, so I do not recommend spending more than 5 minutes. Basically there is a keyboard character that I can not mention that I am banned from using, and in editing documents I have already found multiple noncontroversial ways it would be helpful. The question, in a nutshell, is an editor being tenacious or tendentious? For example, there are other editors who have agreed that certain words might be spelled better with a k, or some other character, and I have recommended not bringing this up at all this year, other than in one or two RMs, each of which last only a week, and actually discuss the issue instead of parroting that it is disruptive to ask the question. Should any come up over the next six months, the deck is stacked, by eliminating one of the editors known to recommend the letter k, or other character. Secondly, I have characterized the RFC/U and the AN action as simply a result of the incivility at the MOS, which has not abated. Any thoughts? Apteva ( talk) 18:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Elen. I just realized I should have told you that I quoted you in the Arb case I recently requested. Sorry for the delay!-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Anonymous user 12.118.47.158 is persistently messing with a wide variety of articles. Any assistance would be most gratefully appreciated. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report ( link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I see you've dealt with him in the past. I'm having issues with him in his present username "Guerrila of the Renmin" where he has taken ownership of not one but three disambiguation pages when I discovered one of them was using CJK characters (now at AFD), one he redirected to the first, and a third he kept because the items listed are written with different CJK characters than the first. What should be the next course of action with this guy before he attempts to clean start again because he's up to his usual tricks.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that your edit level has severely declined. I hope you're not planning to retire :( — ΛΧΣ 21 21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
So its so long and thanks for all the fish, I guess. I might stop by occasionally and see whether the account is still unblocked. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to mention that my data retention policy you seem so stunned with now was detailed over a year ago to both the Committee and the foundation general counsel and that you didn't have any objections then. — Coren (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe I can be prohibited from replying to the motion onwiki, and so that is what I intend to do. Should any other Arbs communicate their concerns to me, I will respond here.
To respond to the issue that Coren posed, which was along the lines that he did not trust that I would not suddenly decide that some other piece of information should not be kept private. I have a very clear understanding about the need to protect personally revealing information provided by or on individuals. Following UK law, such data must not be shared with individuals who are not authorised to see it (and numerous large fines show the vigour with which this is followed up). The WMF privacy policy relating to OS and CU data covers the same types of data and has the same restrictions (I wonder if it is modeled on European law, which is stricter, to give it the widest possible applicability). It contains more than adequate provision to cover the exceedingly rare situation where a CU or OS might find themselves in possession of information that urgently needs to be lawfully passed to a third party (eg the Feds), and it is clear that the WMF takes an active role in managing that, through their emergency mail system.
That (to my mind) is quite a different situation to revealing outrageous statements made by Wikipedia Arbitrators which, in the opinion already given by several lawyers who perused the situation, could never have had an expectation of privacy in the first place. What must I think be in Coren's mind is that an oversighter can see an allegation about a third party that warranted oversight. Some allegations might be explosive and have very serious consequences (claiming someone is a paedophile or an undercover cop could endanger their lives), others less so, but the key thing is that it must be personally revealing information to be oversighted under the the WMF policy. If the text does not fall into that class, then it should not be oversighted (handily allowing any administrator to delete gross insults that reveal no personal data). If it is oversighted, then it is covered by the policy and can only be revealed to a third party under the constraints imposed by that policy. That's a bright line.
In the case of Checkuser data, it is a little more complicated. The WMF will only provide it to a third party on being presented with the right order from the right court. Consequently, a checkuser should theoretically never be discussing CU data with non CUs. It sometimes happens on the Functionaries list, which has non-CU functionaries subscribed, but all are agreed on that list that it shouldn't happen, and it certainly must not happen anywhere else. At the same time, it is sometimes necessary to put information into SPIs, particularly when dealing with persistent vandals and diligent sockfarmers - and paid editing rings that are socking from each other's locations. There's more of a balancing act here - the minimum necessary information to the smallest number of people, being aware that "editing thru a proxy in China" conveys no identifying information, "editing on a RoadRunner range" just says they are in the US while some Verizon ranges practically give you a street address, "range 212.xxx.xxx.xxx/24" will tell anyone who does a lookup that the editor is in the North of England, "IP is assigned to FooCorp" means you've just revealed where the guy works even if you haven't posted the IP address, and "always edits from FooCorp IP between 23.00 and 06.00 means that FooCorp can finger him as the night watchman. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen. I'm leaving this note here to suggest a way forward and to give a bit more background. As you know, ArbCom tends to have a lot of things on its plate at the same time. This was one matter which was being discussed, and then brought to a head by Coren's e-mail to you. That e-mail was not from the committee, but from him with the committee copied in (though I for one hadn't seen that e-mail before it was sent). As you correctly surmise, that e-mail prompted more discussion. At some point in that, I checked when you had last edited and noticed that it was sometime previously (10 days or so) - Coren can probably clarify whether he had noticed your absence or not. That would have been a good point to send a follow-up e-mail asking for a brief response from you when you got back as to whether you wanted this discussed in public or dealt with by e-mail. You are right that you should have been brought in on this much earlier, and that a public discussion is in some ways easier than e-mail and certainly more transparent, but we are where we are now. I hope we can wind this back a bit and start again. I have suggested to the rest of ArbCom that we move this discussion to a public fora (somewhere better suited for this than your talk page), but it is quite possible that the decision may be that most of the discussion needs to remain internal, though I am happy to state on-wiki my views on the matter. It may take us a while to sort this out, but let me know what you think and how you would like this dealt with. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to tell you where things are now and not leave you hanging: we're currently hashing out the details of a proposed motion that will be posted publicly for voting (I expect /Motions is the most likely venue), and where you will have have an opportunity to respond. That motion will not propose removal of your permissions; that alternative has been robustly discussed (to say the least) and it would have passed or failed by the barest of margins depending on an abstention and an inactive arbitrator – and nobody feels that a decision that marginal on such a delicate issue is advantageous to anyone or the project.
So that you are not taken by surprise, the proposed motion will consist of a strong admonition and a reminder; I expect it should be ready for public discussion in a day or two. — Coren (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Elen, Coren has an interest in keeping alleged Arbitator misbehaviour under the super secret seal of the mailing list archives, the fallout from the his block of Giano makes it clear that his own actions have been and are being concealled from the community by the policy on list secrecy. Any former Arbitrator who has misused the list has reason to fear disclosure and the idea that you are unable to distinguish between genuinely sensitive personally identifying information and material that should have been addressed on-wiki is a fiction – in reality, it is precisely because you are capable of understanding the distinction that you are feared. I am surprised and disappointed that you are being targetted but not at all surprised that Coren would be leading the charge. Unlike you, however, I have great difficulty assuming that the motivation is about potential misuse of the tools or the information to which you have access; that is merely a pretext for action, and I hope that there are enough members of the current Committee who recognise this. EdChem ( talk) 12:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting that Coren chose to add a "Kibitzers" sub-heading. According to the Kibitzer article offers "(often unwanted) advice or commentary" and I have no doubt that Coren would prefer no advice or commentary on this issue. More interestingly, however, kibitzing is a chess term referring to a spectator or spectators "making comments on a chess game that can be heard by the players. Kibitzing on a serious game while it is in progress (rather than during a post-mortem) is a serious breach of chess etiquette." Consequently, I feel the need to point out:
I am dismayed to see Elen considering stepping back from Wikipedia and more than dismayed to see efforts to push her to a situation where she can't use the abilities she has to Wikipedia's best interests. The election shows Elen has a lot of community support and had her situation been heard with out the drama that stalks some of Wkipedia's pages she'd probably have more. I have always had concerns about unilateral power-too many editors damaged by deliberate biased actions. And I have equal concern with the power generated on talk pages to create chaos, and emotional upsurges that have little meaning in terms of logic and reality. This is a collaborative community which means we can use a community in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I 'm not saying Coren is doing anything beyond voicing a concern, but the impact could be as has happened in the past to create a volatile situation that impacts unfairly another person. I sure do wish Wikipedia had a visible-to-the-community-page where something could be explained and where the general community could not come in and pile on, colouring and perhaps twisting what has been said and done. Another fine mess.( olive ( talk) 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC))
You are correct that I have not campaigned on such a platform – not counting the fact that it would have been extraordinarily inappropriate to do so during the election (the closest I've ever gotten to something like that was opine on the propriety of Jclemens's "not a Wikipedian" comment as an answer to a direct question) – I could not possibly claim to have enough information to pronounce myself on that incident at the time.
That said, advanced permission review is part of the normal scope of the sitting ArbCom, and there is nothing exceptional about the incoming committee making that evaluation as part of settling in (to wit what happened around FT2 in 2009). — Coren (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
While I'm not sure exactly what brought on the above, it's reminding me forcibly about when I closed a discussion after having asked a single question, and was reverted for being WP:INVOLVED by an admin who had been an active participant in the discussion. I gave up my bit for a couple of months in disgust, but came back later. Hope to see you at full throttle again soon, Elen! -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Just another morlock stopping by to say "Don't let the bastards grind you down." So, uh, don't let the bastards grind you down. Life is short, the world is large, and almost no one gets what they deserve. But I like the pseudo-person that appears here as "you", and wish you well. - 124.168.72.151 ( talk) 12:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if I must nominate this page for deletion. It consists of mere songs that were used in the show. There is nothing encyclopedic about this, as it may violate WP:NOTIINFO. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello again... Collis Potter Huntington has been changed several times recently Collis Potter Huntington's History Page by a pair of anonymous users [24] & [25]. The edit summaries look quite educated, but if you look at the actual edits on the page, they're very ignorant. Any help you or other admins can give to this page, which for some reason seems to attract odd vandals (or perhaps just the same one over & over). Ellin Beltz ( talk) 23:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Elen, please don't give up, 'cos you have friends ... and the English muffin article is still patiently awaiting your visit. Really. Politics is poo but editing is good. Best wishes 82.45.217.156 ( talk) 11:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I begin to think that the user, 90.202.58.225 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be Anthony Weights ( talk · contribs). Look at Cheers (season 4) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) What shall I do? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Elen, I know you're not terribly active, but on the other hand, I probably know you better than other active checkusers, so I'll bug you first. Do I understand correctly that a CU can tell whether or not one account sent another account an email thru the WP interface? Not the contents, but the fact that the email was or was not sent. In a case where one user says another user sent them a harassing email, and the other user denies sending any emails at all, would a CU be willing to check this? Not asking for the check yet; still hoping the one not telling the truth comes clean without the check. But I'm inclined to block the liar indefinitely if he doesn't come clean, whichever one it turns out to be. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
You deleted some sourcing that I did on this topic and you claimed that my sources were "poor"-a National database of paranormal research? Also you closed the topic to anyone but admin. for one week. Wow-I'm not impressed. Over-use of power and for a completely power-abuse reason. That is not what admin. status is for you know? 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Elen, I am happy to see that your edit count is gradually climbing again. Without getting into the merits of your recent Arbcom controversy, I must say that I have always known you to be a circumspect and conscientious administrator, and Wikipedia would be a poorer organization if you were to abruptly lay down your tools, vanish, or fade into semi-retirement. There is a place for you and role for you to fill, and I hope you continue to do so. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
— ΛΧΣ 21 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
So after the whole fiasco I was asked to go edit elsewhere. I looked at your profile and saw Dry glue. I noticed the first sentence is written in an odd way, and the revision history says you wrote it. So I figured your opinion was the best on the subject. It originally read
I changed it to
alternatively, you could even write the same sentence as
It kind of becomes potatoe potato at that point. I personally think keeping the words foot and adaptation next to each other is a better idea, because the adhesive is specifically developed from the foot adaptations and not general gecko adaptations (such as a knee adaptation that assists in climbing.) Also, if we are being completely pedantic, the entire gecko climbs the wall, not just their feet. So my first sentence should be the better of the two. But between the last two, it's a horse a piece and not even worth debating.
First I questioned whether the sentence should use which or that. If you don't know the difference, it's pretty clearly explained here.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/which-versus-that.aspx I switched from which to that, to make the second half of the sentence a restrictive clause instead of a nonrestrictive clause. This was to reduce the chance of reading the sentence in a nonsensical way. Nonrestrictive clauses can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence, restrictive clauses cannot. Removing the phrase "which allow them to climb sheer surfaces" drastically changes the meaning of the sentence. That is more appropriate than which. It makes the sentence more clear and easier to read (even in a subliminal way, few people would ever consciously notice.)
Then I removed the oxford comma after surfaces for the exact same reason which becomes that. With the comma "and even glass walls" could apply to the earlier clause, causing the reader to accidentally read the sentence as "Dry glue is a method of adhesion based upon the naturally occurring adaptations of geckos feet and even glass walls." By removing the oxford comma "and even glass walls" only applies to the phrase "climbing sheer surfaces". A native English speaker might be unlikely to get confused, but to others, the sentence can easily be read to mean that dry glue is based on the adhesion properties of glass walls. Glass is not an adhesive. Removing the comma makes the sentence more clear and less ambiguous. As a bonus, by removing the oxford comma and swapping which to that, it allows us to remove the first comma too. The entire sentence can be constructed with no commas. Yay!
Then I noticed "adaptations of the feet of geckos which allow them to." 10 word, 3 prepositions, 3 nouns, 2 pronouns, 1 article, and 1 verb. It creates all sorts of odd possible interpretations. Does "them" refer to the geckos feet or adaptations themselves? Is there a difference? Sort of. I tried to reconstruct the phrase to remove any ambiguous interpretations. Thus, "adaptations of the feet of geckos that allow them to" became "foot adaptations that allow geckos to". The change removes one of two pronouns and two of three prepositions completely. In my opinion, the changes create a sentence with only one interpretation. The phrase now has 3 nouns, 1 pronoun, 1 verb, and 1 preposition, and it definitively makes sense. Much better, right?
Since you are the person who initially wrote the sentence, I defer judgement to you. Do you think, after hearing why I changed the sentence, it is more, or less, clear? I really didn't want to stick around, but enough people politely said to give it a try. I figured I would listen to the experts for once. I made a small edit on an unrelated page. The editor I had a conflict with is now following me around and reverted the changes I made, on completely unrelated pages. The only reason I even found the page was because of your userpage. I don't like having every decision I make undermined and undone, especially as some part of an ill conceived revenge plan. If this keeps happening, there is no way I can keep contributing. Who in their right mind has enough time to continually justify even the most mundane actions? There is no question in my mind the revert occurred as a prejudice against me, because in my eyes the change is absolutely an improvement. Is his second guessing of everything I do just a way to derive pleasure from torturing me? Is creating a new account to escape stalking the best course of action? I can't even reintroduce my improvements without starting an edit war. No dialogue between us has been very constructive. Both of us are at fault for that one. Clearly he didn't put as much thought into the sentence as I did because ALL my changes were reverted, sans two links he put back. At the very least the oxford comma should be removed, and which changed to that. But, my removal of the other comma, a pronoun and prepositions, is what I see as an obvious improvement. "Of the feet of geckos which" has 2 prepositions and a pronoun in six words and a third preposition three words later. It has 2 pronouns in three words (which allow them.) Doing those kinds of things make sentences hard to read. It causes the reader to have to go back and read the sentence a second time. Back when I was a kid we were taught to cut the clutter. Reduce sentences to their basic elements. I will admit, maybe I overlinked one word, feet. That seems like a judgement call. If we are talking about the evolution of gecko feet, I would think a link to feet is handy. I still think I was right to link it, but if someone else didn't, I would have no problem with the link being reverted. I even put what I thought were really good explanations in the comment box describing why I made the changes. Is this guy going to follow me around wikipedia and revert everything I do. Is participating anywhere at all futile? Why bother? My entire reason for treating this as a cup half empty situation was because no matter how small of a chance you make, it gets reverted and you have to write a paragraph justifying your thoughts. And when you do justify your thoughts, they fall on deaf ears because people prefer
Newspeak to actual communication. We are becoming a place where anything more than a sentence or two is glossed over and ignored. I am more than glad to fix oddly constructed sentences here and there, but I don't want to constantly justify every little comma and pronoun change. I can't believe I just wrote this much about a 29 word sentence. Normally I would put this on the talk page, but a) you wrote the sentence, asking for your thoughts directly is best b) Rob self admittedly wont read walls of text anyway and c) it's more of an issue with the aforementioned user than the constituent construction itself. If you think any of my improvements are justified would you look into reinstating some or all of them? Or at least us my observations to construct a more coherent sentence? This is way above me caring about gecko feet. I just want to be left alone to edit in peace. (If you can't tell, my stream of consciousness probably violates all the editing tips I suggest. You can't win them all.)
Xkcdreader (
talk) 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Free Wales Now! what did I screw up? 15:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen, You were right the first time, HackneyHound was an account I created many moons ago. And yes it was operated on a vodafone network. Gravyring was not a sock of mine but my housemate, who I roped in, not sure if thats meat puppetry as we shared a bathroom at the time. So all of the sock cases against Hackneyhound are all different users, potentially innocent or just those using their phone or 3g tablet to avoid a block as I did. But Hackneyhound, I have not used since blocking so any of those blocked related to my account should be revised maybe. Factocop ( talk) 11:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
@HK, don't think so. My main focus was troubles esque such as Londonderry, City of Derry Airport, Giants Causeway, Carlingford Lough etc.
I have nothing to gain from this and I have not breached my sanctions, just so were clear Other accounts not in timely order: HackneyHound Afterlife10 NI4Life Homebirdni CodSa DameEdnaUK AttackZack (I'm a saved by the bell fan) Pilgrimsquest
...a few more but can't remember off top of my head.
Factocop (
talk) 15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thats all I can remember, but feel free to point out any... Factocop ( talk) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
@highking, no not levenboy. Don't think we've collaborated on anything either. @Luke, youre late to the party. I already served 2 yrs for socking and was allowed to edit under sanctions. Factocop ( talk) 19:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
People, take some advice from an old Wikipedian - NEVER trust a sock-master & keep all of his suspected socks blocked. GoodDay ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
[39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. Factocop ( talk) 10:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Bull-Doser has created today a new account that inserted the same content that got him blocked in October. [48].
Right now, I'm about to leave the house out and don't have time to fill SPI. I'll deal with that later. But in the mean time, you can just have a quick look at it even if you decide to not take actions. Bye. Farine ( talk) 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Aaron Schwartz (Canadian actor):
Is there a way to find out? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This should prove that GabeMc is getting harrassed. Will this give him full rights to rid WP of all content dispute editors against him forever?. I am providing the means for him to accompish this, right here.
You are a bitch but we still love you!
BTW: When that POS WER section of domineering crap learns that banning everybody will stop editors from quitting they will have learnt something. Dennis should know better. Is running WP into the ground by design or happenstance? Most of its members have the attitude.
Have a good one!! 200.79.224.72 ( talk) 22:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I created a request of editor review on me. Just to let you know. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I sent you an e-mail last week ... did you ever get it? ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 00:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen, just a quick heads-up to let you know that I've listed IP 168.94.245.6 at WP:OPP, since they're contesting the proxyblock you actioned in November. Cheers, Yunshui 雲 水 08:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Other contributors of note include:
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E ( submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This thread on your Meta talk page from November, 2012 was mentioned. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, absolutely nothing will be done against this tenditious editor![ [51]]
It appears donating money to WP will allow an editor unlimited rights above everybody else like a paid for, God mode.
How far will WP go to support itself, in its failing venture, even if it means losing ALL it's up and coming new editors due to unfair, nonsensical, disciplinary practices?
Block me. IP's are cheap and ruining WP anyway (sarc). Soon only IPs will edit here.
RipWikipedia? No 200.79.224.72 ( talk) 22:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
A Daily Mail Online article, “ Gunman Hoax That Forced MIT to Go On Lockdown Was REVENGE for Suicide of Reddit Co-Founder Aaron Swartz,” is cited as a secondary source at Aaron Swartz: Attacks, hacks and hoaxes.
Another reported that … the first public alert did not go out until 8:47am; ‘Not so timely,’ he observed.[151]
The Mail article gives the reporting person’s name: “John Hawkinson.”
Another Twitter user John Hawkinson wrote that … the first public alert did not go out until 8.47am. ‘Not so timely,’ he wrote.
A User:Jhawkinson is listed as a frequent contributor to the Swartz article in WP.
487 edits on article: Aaron_Swartz. Frequent users: Dervorguilla; David in DC; …; Jhawkinson; …
Are Jhawkinson and John Hawkinson the same person? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope she's [Dervorgulla's] incorrect. Because if she is, outing an editor calls for a ban.
Happy ending. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 01:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen. Hope you're well. Are you still subscribed to Oversight-l? If so, please urgently search your inbox for messages with the subject line beginning [Oversight-l] [URGENT]
. The first message was sent on 2 March, and at the time of my writing this the newest message in the thread was also sent later on 2 March. All that's needed from you is one signature on the OTRS wiki, and the sooner the better. If you aren't subscribed to Oversight-l, please e-mail ArbCom or one of the more active oversighters (Beeblebrox or Fluffernutter might be a good choice) to find out what we need you to do. Thanks very much,
AGK
[•] 20:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
In the past years, I had very little interest in improving Wikipedia. In fact, I've hurt people more than I did not intend, and I was a fanatic deletionist. However, since I was unblocked with mentorship agreements, I thought I could do anything I want, but then I realize there is more to helping the cause than just stand there and do nothing except nominating for deletion. In fact, I have to reluctantly agree with terms, and so far I have interests in improving pages about topics more than just deleting material. Lately, I have requested renaming of Chandra Levy, and I created season pages, like Cheers (season 6), and improved Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal.
However, I haven't used User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions for half a year (or something like that) because I no longer have interest in recklessly requesting deletion on things that need a lot of improvement. Neverthless, I think that List of Curb Your Enthusiasm directors must go. Lately, I've not been receiving replies. I would hope that the page is in your watchlist, isn't it? I wonder if you want to continue as my mentor. If not, then surely I can find your replacement if necessary.
Note: This post is intended for only active and semi-active people. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Rs chen 7754 07:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You probably recall this editor. Last March you unblocked him and later blocked him. When you unblocked him he was denying sock puppetry. Looks like he was lying. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson - he started his Nasorean sock in February. I hate it when I AGF and get bitten, don't you? Dougweller ( talk) 22:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
... in this query, as Fram has reverted User:Peter Damian back to the "scarlet letter" state. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC).
A discussion which relates to actions or comments made by you can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Peter Damian socks. Fram ( talk) 15:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
FWIW regarding this and this, please see here. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You elucidated me on Check User, and I quoted it here. Also: I miss you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I see you have not edited in over three weeks. I hope that the fact that the community made appalling mistakes in the past election has not caused you to abandon us.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Elen,
You were able to help me with a copyright question about three years ago (thank you very much), so I turn to you again with two other questions. First: I would like to upload to Wiki Commons a photo of a poster by Adolphe Willette for the pantomime L'Enfant prodigue by Michel Carré fils (1890). Unfortunately, Willette's date of death was February 4, 1926, which seems to prohibit free use of the image. But does it make a difference that the poster was reproduced in Ernest Maindron's Les Affiches illustrées (1886-1895) in Paris in the year 1896 (this would be my photographic source)?
My second question concerns a theater poster: I acquired a photo of it from the New York Public Library at Lincoln Center. The poster is undated and unsigned (though it seems to bear the name "J. Morgan & Co., U.S.A." in faint script bottom-right). It advertises a pantomime, Superba, by the Hanlon-Lees, that played only in North America from October 1, 1890, to April 22, 1911. I'm fairly certain I have free use of the image--but how do I go about dealing with questions about its authorship, date, and so on?
I'm very grateful for whatever help you can give me. Beebuk 10:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Elen of the Roads! I have found that you have oversight tools. I would like to ask you to oversight this statement, because it is constantly used by others to attack, denigrate, harass and provoke wikipedian Russavia, like here, for example. -- Seleucidis ( talk) 11:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A matter you helped resolve, for a time, is heating up again. Would you please review this talk page thread and see if you think I'm out of line? Or if anyone else is. I think it's someone else, but a review of my edits is probably necessary as well. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated the article G5 (Universities) for deletion, but I am not sure whether I have completed all the steps, and wondered if you may be able to help as an admin/experienced user. thanks Hkong91 ( talk) 00:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I have found a hoax region "Upstate California" with which the creating User_talk:Ikluft#No_govt_rivalry user seems to be emotionally and personally involved. I am unable to verify that the economic entity on that page is real. I have lived in this area since 2001, I have never heard the term used for any part of California except by the "Upstate Economic Development" group which is being promoted on this wiki page even though it is not one of the legally constituted Economic Development groups in the region. I am unable to find that the term is in any form of wide-spread use other that for the mentions given on that page. I have read several of the documents from end to end and I still don't find this to be of much importance, other than to the people who are promoting it - and promoting themselves. A simple Google search turns up 3 things: Wiki page, Forum of "whoever heard of Upstate California" and the website of the UED, which has very little on it. I don't think many pages link to this page, mostly because it's not a real entity in this part of Northern California which is usually referred to as the "Northstate" region as correctly stated on the Northern California wikipage. Looking forward to any assistance you can render with this person and their self-promotion. With best wishes, Ellin Beltz ( talk) 17:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Elen of the Roads
Thanks Wehwalt, if Elen of the Roads has been "driven off" I suppose there is no need for further comments on this page. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen. I hope everything is okay. You've been inactive for several months, so I've dropped you an e-mail with the usual advance warning that your CU/OS permissions will be revoked if you continue to be missing from Wikipedia. Please let us know soon if you intend to return at some point in the near future. AGK [•] 10:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope you decide to come back sometime. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Elen, Hope you come back, or are still here somewhere under a new name. We miss your generous spirit and willingness to aid those in need. Hope this is just a temporary hiatus, and we all wish you well in whatever endeavors you are pursuing. Rosencomet ( talk) 15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face; the rains fall soft upon your fields and until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of His hand.
NE Ent 01:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Elen,
We have sent you a number of emails about this, but I wanted to post this on-wiki note as well. The Arbitration Committee has removed your CheckUser and Oversight access for inactivity. If you return one day and wish to regain the tools, well, I'm sure you know the procedure for doing even better than I do. Best, NW ( Talk) 18:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, as you were the last admin to block him for violating his editing restrictions. postdlf ( talk) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Just dropping by to get you to run for ArbCom and I see you've up and gone. It is a pity for all of us... Best wishes to you in Life After The Circus. —Tim //// Carrite ( talk) 08:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Recently, User:Oriole85 ( contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps ( contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 ( talk) 05:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
civility
Thank you for your answers to my questions about our
respect for editors as living persons, for your
illustrations of "fishy" with "
grace under fire", for a
flavoured tea, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (22 November 2009)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 332nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, now we miss you. I entered you in my list of answers from the candidates, knowing that you would have looked at the facts and told a colleague who didn't, with your flavour of kindness, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Two years now: looking at what some said about a "gender gap", you are missed even more. Promising answers by new candidates who didn't mention gender, but common sense ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Six years now, and remebered, and much missed, see? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
seven, and remembered -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Elen, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) I hope you're still out there visiting Wikipedia frequently, (though not editing) hopefully you might return some day eventually. Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I see Elen has been added to the Missing Wikipedians category. Anyone know what happened? -- B2 C 01:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
B2c, I assume you are just as capable as the rest of us at checking page histories and following links if you want to know what happened with this or any other kerfuffle on Wikipedia. It's all there if you care to look, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to spoon-feed links to you upon request. Having said that, I agree with S Philbrick that it's not unreasonable to want to know (I've certainly wasted spent innumerable hours researching various dramahs—sometimes in an effort to better understand Wikipedia's conflicts and see where their participants are coming from, sometimes just out of morbid curiosity, i.e., human nature), and I don't see that "decency" has anything to do with it. And having said that, I'll also say this: my concern, and the reason I jumped into this thread, is that I'd hate to see old wounds reopened to no good purpose. People may legitimately hold different interpretations of what happened with Arbcom in late 2012, but I'd hope we can all agree that it serves no good purpose to restart the dramah again here and now. Since Elen is no longer a functionary, even the people who disagreed with her actions have no legitimate reason to resume their complaints about her now. So please, let's not go over old ground again.
Rivertorch (
talk) 23:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll start a new section accordingly.
I still don't get the "offered tea to the wrong person" reference. I see an offer of tea to Elen on this page, but nothing about her offering tea to anyone. -- B2 C 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads ceased editing in March 2013 without posting any sort of explanatory statement. We should respect her privacy and not post speculation as to the reasons for that -- quite simply, it is not our story to tell. NE Ent 11:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 2/19/2014. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. -- JMatthews (WMF) ( talk) 06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 00:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. – xeno talk 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Elen, I don't know whether you will read here again, nor whether you will ever choose to return to Wikipedia, but I miss your editing and your administrating, and do hope you will choose to be back again someday. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Elen. May I ask of you why you blocked me back in the end of 2011? Did I do something awfully destructive? If I did do something, then what did I do? Here are some things.
If there is any dissent, please say it. I would be very appreciated if you could tell me what I did that was so harmful to the project. Thank you for your everything you do and have done.
(Oh, and by the way, I go to college/tertiary education now.)
Regards, - Porchcorpter 10:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This one says "meow", surprisingly. All the best,
Drmies (
talk) 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! | |
Hello Elen of the Roads, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Surely you are interested in this: [52]
And let me copy here my last comment there to introduce the situation:
" 'Let me summarize here what the last admin discovered and stated on 2012¡: Ratel but using the sockpuppet Jabbsworth plead to ARBCOM to be unblocked promising he will never use sockpuppets and openly mentioned to ARBCOM three sockpuppets (RxWatch, OzOke, and Hill-Mitchelson) he was using. On 2012 admin User:Elen of the Roads noticed that Jabssworth never mentioned but hid to ARBCOM that he was also Ratel, and he never mentioned but also hid that he was Ticklemeister. User:Elen of the Roads also discovered and noticed that he was also using another sockpuppet (Medic58), that he also kept hid during his last and all the previous SPI and also hid it to ARBCOM. So he was clearly breaching his promises to ARBCOM, deceiving them and the users, plus dishonoring his own words. That was the kind of disruptive behaviour that was sanctioned by User:Elen of the Roads by re-establishing the block that ARBCOM had forgiven to Jabssworth. Now since 2013 up to now, Ratel using JabbaTheHot evaded that last block, breaks his promises, he is caught and blocked again some days ago and you say that is a clean start, that he is not being distruptive and therefore he deserves to be unblocked again? " -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
for having a awesome userpage | |
this is a awesome userpage Dfrr ( talk) 20:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC) |
Thought of you today - and just noting that you are missed. Hope all is well in your world Elen. — Ched : ? 18:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Your day of precious remembered, with another kitten, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
... remembered again, five years, and missed. Your talk is still a source of inspiration, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 01:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
On 20 October 2012 you indefinitely blocked SNIyer12 ( talk · contribs · count) an editor who contributed 61,233 edits to wikipedia and had been active since 3 April 2005. Where can I find the background of the blocking of this editor. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
The file File:Watchlist with green stars.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Old orphaned esoteric file.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Watchlist showing italic used to highlight unread pages.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Old orphaned esoteric file.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Watchlist with stars and bold.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Old orphaned esoteric file.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ~
Rob13
Talk 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
We miss you. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Star Trek sequel. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled Star Trek sequel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. You are remembered and missed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)