User talk:Elonka

Elonka-Reply

I'll see about putting together a User Page in the next couple of days/weeks. As soon as I get some free time - although given your schedule I should be ashamed to make that statement. 8-) Thanks again. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka

I appreciate the welcome and the suggested pages. I look forward to continuing to contribute to Wikipedia ttonyb1 (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, would it be reasonable to characterize Wikipedia as a large scale internet game that allows many simultaneous players; attracts kids who have grown tired of action games and improving their motor skills and are looking for something a little more heady; provides opportunities for non-threatening (e.g., anonymous) interaction with persons having similar inclinations and some adults; provides opportunities for intellectual and social risk-taking and making mistakes without personal social consequences at home; provides those who stick it out for awhile and become administrators with opportunities to participate in rule making and application, as well as discussion of the consequences of imposting sanctions? If so, an encyclopedia is a vehicle for a larger social development experiment for teens, eh? An educational/developmental game? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Banned

Yes, a long-term problem user, abusive sockpuppeteer who has had three independent block reviews. Unless ArbCom do step in and lift the ban I don't think any admin would consider unblocking. Therefore, he's been community banned. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin, and I would consider unblocking. Based on my own review, Jagz has effectively been tarred and feathered, but no one has yet provided a strong basis for why. I just see a lot of name-calling, without diffs. --Elonka 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a difference. It was disgusting to read and inappropriate. QuackGuru 19:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You would be wise to wait until ArbCom has considered his unblock request. If it is granted, no action from you is necessary, and if it is denied, then you would be placing your own judgment over that of the blocking admin, the three admins who reviewed the unblock request, and ArbCom. I'd recommend you consider your actions very carefully indeed under those circumstances. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that I would just unblock unilaterally. I meant that I am willing to unblock, if other conditions are met. I have no intention of wheel warring. But my understanding of the banning policy, is that, barring a full community banning discussion, as long as there exists an admin who would be willing to consider an unblock, that an indef block is not a ban. I know that there's a lot of confusion though over "what is a ban" and "what is a block". What I've honestly been seeing though with the Jagz situation, is one where a kind of lynch mob mentality set in. There was a content dispute at some articles, including Race and intelligence, which resulted in a certain group of editors repeatedly calling Jagz a troll because they disagreed with the kind of information that he wished to add. Jagz, an editor on Wikipedia since 2005 who had done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in the past, including some on an article that reached FA, eventually reacted with anger, including some unfortunate incivility. When he did this, it just reinforced all the other voices calling him a troll, and he was indef blocked. He then responded with even worse incivility towards the admin that blocked him. However, aside from the rather constant name-calling by his opponents, no one has yet produced diffs that he was violating Wikipedia policies in any way prior to this dispute. If anyone can provide such diffs, I would be happy to review them. But until then, it is my opinion that we may have blocked a good editor who just lost his temper. Which is why I would still be willing to consider an unblock. --Elonka 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it's probably a good idea to heed what Tim wrote in its entirety. Jagz was community-banned, after much thought and for excellent reasons: primarily that Wikipedia does not tolerate racism, anti-Semitism, etc. Incivility, of which I am sometimes guilty, is one thing, but racism and anti-Semitism and the rest of the -isms that go with those two, is something else entirely. Additionally, serving NPA warnings to those who know full well Jagz' MO and POV is not necessarily helpful and should only be done when it's clearly a vio of NPA, not just anger that a banned editor is still posting in a disruptive and disgusting manner. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch, Jagz was not community-banned. He was indef blocked, there's a difference. See WP:BAN. As for the other comments, if you're going to make those kinds of accusations towards another editor, you'd better provide diffs, thanks. --Elonka 21:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A community ban is an indefinite block in which no admin is willing to unblock the user. You concurred with the indefinite block at the time [1] and no admin opposed it. At that point, he was effectively community banned. This user had six mainspace edits (none significant) in his last month here, so I'm not sure what benefit there would be from removing his ban. --B (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, do you have a job where others do your research for you or where you do your own? And, are you calling Tim's judgment into question? Also, "you'd better provide diffs" implies a threat of some sort (given the tacit "or else"); perhaps "please provide diffs" would be better. Thanks. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Once we know what ArbCom decided, Jim, we'll be in a better position to discuss this. Incidentally, I'm quite happy for my judgment to be questioned, since like everybody I make mistakes all the time, but we need all the facts before we can decide what is the best thing to do. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

True, and while I have to admit to questioning your judgment a couple of times, I ended up agreeing with you. Although I still think you're too calm.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

allow me to add (having been following this little debate out of idle curiosity), that diffs would be very helpful. I've noticed a tendency in wikipedia disputes to rely - sometimes almost exclusively - on character references/assassinations rather than on actual behavior. however, it seems to me that it really shouldn't matter whether Jagz has horns and sulfury smoke coming out of his nose, or whether you and Tim are made entirely out of Barnstars. the issue should still be decided by a careful examination of the questionable behavior in context. no offense to you or your word, but there's nothing quite like seeing for oneself, yah? --Ludwigs2 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagz was under community ban. Elonka lifted the ban, claiming she could mentor him. Rather than call that wheel-warring, I am willing to watch and give Elonka a shot. But she failed miserably - well, I should say Jagz failed. The community ban was restored. I have no idea why Elonka is so invested in revoking the community ban against a disruptive, racist editor. And i am all for giving fellow admin's some slack. But sooner or later disrupting community bans really does bcome wheel-warring and I would say trying to to revoke a community ban a second time, well, that is one step too far, surely. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While Elonka said she would consider unblocking, I'm sure she would not make that decision before gauging the opinions of other editors and waiting for ArbCom's response - she may be bold, but she's not completely indifferent to other people's opinions. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Tim, I stand corrected. But I do have to correct Elonka's characterization of a dispute that she endlessly repeats although she has been corrected: "a certain group of editors repeatedly calling Jagz a troll because they disagreed with the kind of information that he wished to add. Jagz, an editor on Wikipedia since 2005 who had done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in the past, including some on an article that reached FA, eventually reacted with anger, including some unfortunate incivility." There was and remains a strong consensus at these articles that certain claims, especially the one that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites, is fringe and racist science and virtually any discussion of the claim, except in its historical context, would violate WEIGHT. For well over a year Jagz kept insisting on putting the claim in as a major view among mainstream scientists. We had at least two RfCs. There was an overhwelming consensus against doing this. I and several other editors tried to reason with Jagz, explaining why we rejected his claim. I asked on many occasions for him to explain his reasoning and provide his evidence, and he never did. It was only after several months of his refusal to discuss his edit, combined with his insistence of pushing his fringe POV against consensus, that I began dismissing him as a troll. The problem was not his losing his temper after being called a troll. The problem was his being a troll, i.e. the pattern of racist pov-pushing edits and disruptive behavior on the talk page, and an unwillingless to participate in any attempt to compromise and a refusal to accept mediation... it was all of these troll-behaviors that got him blocked. During the dispute several people provided an explanation of the account, which Elonka ignored. Nor could she produce edit differences to support her case. At this point it is clear to me that the problem is not Jagz but Elonka, who refuses to treat hard-working, well-informed editors, who have consistently argued on the basis of solid research and policy, with any respect or good faith, and who insists that she has the permanent right to review our edits. Do we have to justify every edit to her? Is she the permanent moderator of these pages? By what authority or right? This presumption of power is itself an insult to the Wikipedia community. At this point it seems to me that Elonka is just nursing a bruised ego. She has defended a racist troll and tried to mentor him, and he resisted her best efforts. But she continues to suggest that her opinion must be right and that of all other editors, wrong. Elonka, you made a mistake. We forgive you. Now get over it and move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is as close to a truly "outside" opinion as you're likely to get in Wikipedia. I came here by mistake, having accidentally clicked on a google link that took me to a Wikipedia article rather than to the collection of papers at NYU I needed to consult on a particular topic; I read the Wikipedia entry on the topic with mixed amusement, disbelief, and horror. I wondered to myself, "Who are these people, who could get such an interesting subject so totally and ludicrously wrong?" I saw the "discussion" tab at the top of the page, clicked it, and started reading, going from one article to another. A link from that article led to a Wikiproject that asked for help at "What the Bleep Do We Know." I figured I could be helpful there, so I went there and participated in a discussion that led to a lead that all sides could agree on; I learned a lot during that time about how consensus building works. Following links, I found the fringe theory and NPOV noticeboards, and it was at one of those boards that I learned about the race and intelligence article, which when I read it made me physically ill. I did my masters' degee work in psychology and am familiar with what reliable sources have to say on this topic; I also have some understanding of where the fringe and racist ideas on this subject come from (they come from very marginal polemicists and political think tanks, not from reliable research); those ideas serve a particular political agenda ("neo-Nazi" is an inflammatory term I might not have chosen for purposes of this discussion, but since it's been raised, I'll agree that these ideas do indeed serve a neo-Nazi agenda) but have no place in an encyclopedia that prides itself on being a serious, high-quality reference work that offers a neutral presentation of a topic as portrayed in reliable sources.

The article had been brought to the attention of the noticeboard by Jagz, because there was so much complaint at the article itself about the POV slant of the article, that he wanted some outside opinions and so had started an RfC at the article talk page. The outside opinions overwhelmingly agreed with the inside opinions (that the article was not NPOV as it stood) and because he was unhappy with how the RfC was going, he withdrew the request for comments. He did this twice as I recall, announced and then withdrew requests for comments when they didn't go his way. He was obviously not interested in working to arrive at the consensus of reliable sources; instead he seemed interested only in keeping the article as it was, POV and very unencyclopedic. In this case, it was one person (as I recall there might have been one other working along with Jagz to promote this agenda, but I don't remember the name) working against the consensus of all other editors. I thought consensus was supposed to be a good thing; to call editors who have reached consensus with reliable sources on a topic a "lynch mob" is to fail to understand what our purpose is here. To insist that responsible editors reach some sort of consensus with editors promoting material that has no place in the encyclopedia is to serve only the purpose of the fringe advocates, not to serve the purpose of building an encyclopedia.

In my reading on Wikipedia I had come to realize that while the core policies that form the underpinnings of the project are brilliant and should ensure the high-quality product that is the stated goal, they can only promote that goal if their enforcement is a high priority, and I didn't see any commitment at any level to enforcing these policies. I identified (not in consultation with anyone here but simply my own conclusions drawn from my own reading in articles that interest me) three editors who were disrupting articles by continually trying to insert material that served some agenda other than the encyclopedic agenda of accurately portraying the subject as represented in reliable sources; I decided that if these three editors were blocked or banned I would be able to believe in Wikipedia and its commitment to producing a reliable encyclopedia. Jagz was one of these editors. In quick succession, the first of the editors was banned, then Jagz was blocked, and then the third POV pusher was given a topic ban to stay out of the articles he was disrupting, and I was just starting to think okay, it looks like maybe Wikipedia is serious after all, and now I will make good on my promise to start editing here if these three editors were banned.

Enter Elonka. I watched in disbelief as Elonka rescued Jagz from being blocked and gave him helpful suggestions on how to game the system. But even under that unbelievably indulgent tutelage, Jagz couldn't help himself and lashed out and was blocked again. I thought okay, that's that; she learned her lesson. But no, here she is again, arguing a simply unsupportable argument that Jagz' problems were caused by people not treating him right, not by his insistence on promoting an agenda that is not supported by reliable sources and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Elonka can't possibly have looked seriously at the history here, or at the content of the articles in question. You really can't determine who is disruptive purely on the basis of conduct; the bottom line for the encyclopedia is content. If Elonka is allowed to have her way with these kinds of issues, it will be the end of the ideal of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia; if this is the direction Wikipedia chooses to go, from now on the only possible future for the project is to be a platform to promote the most dubious, ludicrous and dangerous ideas available today, and to be a laughingstock to people who want an encyclopedia to be a summary of reliable information from reliable sources (a group that comprises most people outside Wikipedia itself). Woonpton (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Woonpton, thank you for your thoughtful message. However, at the risk of me sounding like a broken record, could you please provide some diffs? Specifically, could you point to some places where Jagz was inserting information into articles that was either (a) unsourced; (b) depending on unreliable sources; (c) misinterpreting reliable sources; or (d) in violation of talkpage consensus? Thanks, --Elonka 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was taken to mediation here. [2] During that period Jagz stopped editing. Because he did not sign up - he was the "major player" referred to by User:Daniel - mediation was dropped. Very soon afterwards Jagz reappeared on WP. Although I hardly edited Race and intelligence, I saw that Jagz made a huge issue over this sentence [3] which rather clearly indicated that the POV he was pushing (that of Murray, Rushton, Jensen and Lynn) was not accepted by mainstream academics. His tinkering with the phrase was against consensus: his versions clearly changed its meaning. [4] Similarly he attempted to introduce material about biomedicine unrelated to the article with a source that didn't even mention biomedicine.[5] On the other hand I hardly edited the mainspace article, so other editors are in a much better position to comment. You might find it helpful having a word with User:Moonriddengirl, the administrator who watched the page for a long period. Mathsci (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if I may be so bold as to remind you that you have trawled through the contribution histories of a number of users for no apparent reason: surely in this case you could apply the same trawling process when there clearly is a reason. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me a moment's frustration. I read through all of the diffs Mathsci posted above, carefully and slowly, and I don't see anything there that indicates Jagz was being racist, disruptive, or even uncivil (well, maybe a couple of points on the last...). in fact, it seems as though Jags was putting in a lot of effort to make a relatively minor adjustment on a passage he thought was incorrect, and ran into a whole lot of seemingly ungrounded and petty interference from a handful of other editors. in particular this] link, in which (apparently) a revert war happened because Jagz tried to add a {{dubious}} tag to a passage, and then Jagz tries 3 or 4 different revisions on the talk page to clean up the problem, with the only responses being things like The sentence makes its point rather clearly and does not seem worth arguing about and Your formulations just say exactly what the current section says, just in a far less legible manner, along with a handful of pov-pusher and troll references. finally, when Ramdrake steps in and Jags agrees that Ramdrakes version of the passage is good, Jagz is accused (bizarrely) of filibustering.

I count 3 mildly uncivil comments by Jagz in this section, and 4 or 5 mildly uncivil comments directed at Jagz (including slrubenstien twice linking wp:DNFTT). I count 3 times in which Ramdrake (who I take as a relatively neutral voice on this diff) criticized Jagz for making off-topic or personal comments, but Ramdrake seems to have neglected to make any criticisms whatsoever of other editors for equally snappish statements. just based on behavior, this diff seems to support Jagz as a relatively decent editor, and I feel a certain sympathy for him because he looks like he's being badgered - and yet this is offered as criticism? Maybe Jagz is some god-forsaken neo-nazi from hell, but I sure as heck can't draw that conclusion from the material that's been provided here. --Ludwigs2 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

All those words to say that the point was missed? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Twenty seconds of homework. Sigh. [6]. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I started calling Jagz a troll when it was evident to me that he is a troll. I waited over a year. If you want to see the evidence, you will just have read all talk concerning race and intelligence from late 2006 to mid 2008. Does this sound like a lot of work? Well, it is up to you, but that is what you need to do to see his pattern of trollish behavior. here is a very mild example: [7]. The comment by itself is irritating and does not violate any single policy. But I am not accusing Jagz of having made one two or even three edits that violated a single policy. i am accusing him of being a troll and what makes him a troll is a pattern of behavior over a more than 18 month period. What is this patten? Ignoring other people's reasoning. refusing to explain his own reasoning. Pushing for the inclusion on one fringe point of view, namely that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. No one edit is a violation of any policy. Wikipedia editors of good faith have to use their judgment. Ramdrake, Alun, myself and others participated in the talk page discussion for years and reached this conclusion. Do you doubt us? Do what we did: read through two years or so of talk. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka and others need to stop wikilawyering and understand that not all conflicts and problems at Wikipedia are caused by single or repeat violations of wikipedia policy A pattern of behavior over a year's period that has a disruptive influence on the discussion is trolling. Ludwig takes my comment out of context. the context is not what happened that day, it is what happened that whole year. Whant to understand why I wrote what I wrote? Do what jagz and others did: follow the whole discussion for over a year. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

slrubenstein: I don't mean any offense - while I disagree with you on a good number of points, I happen to think you're a good editor. However, I wasn't taking your comments out of context; I was taking them in the context you gave, which is the only context I have. Let me be frank: the problems you cite - (slightly modified): Ignoring other people's reasoning. refusing to explain his own reasoning. Pushing for the inclusion on one point of view - are problems I myself experience on a frequent basis with certain well-regarded editors here whom no one is accusing of being trolls. this is endemic to wikipedia. if you want to make the argument that Jagz is a troll (different from these other editors who do the same things), then it's your responsibility to provide an argument that his behavior is significantly above and beyond the pale. don't make it our responsibility to fact-check your accusations: present diffs that put Jagz behavior in context and show the pattern of abuse, show that it's different from the gobs of low-grade crap that we all have to deal with from each other, otherwise I'm just as likely to think that you're overreacting. it's not that I doubt you, but it is your case to make.

Jim: yeah, I'm a talker. it serves me well in academia and the dating world, but no so good other places. and that comment about Mastcell was irritating and juvenile (and MC, in my experience, doesn't do anything to deserve that kind of thing), but by itself might merit a two day block. was that a consistent thing that Jagz did? if so, I'd understand the troll accusations a lot more. --Ludwigs2 00:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch, you're right, that comment from Jagz was disgusting, and deserving of an immediate block.[8] I said as much when Jagz made it, back in June, and supported his block.[9] I also protected Jagz's talkpage at the time to prevent Jagz was continuing to say anything else uncivil.[10] But it still doesn't make Jagz a troll. Look at the context of that statement, which is that Jagz was reacting to admin MastCell for blocking him. In no way does this excuse the language. But it fails to answer two questions: (1) Why was Jagz indef blocked in the first place; and (2) Why is he indef blocked now? If we're allowing indef blocks of any editor for a couple lapses in civility, well, I've got a list, just let me know, I'll get right on that.  :) Getting back to the definition of the word "troll" though, I think some people here are very confused on just what this term means. Please, I encourage everyone to actually read WP:TROLL. Even better, read this NY Times article, "The trolls among us," which does an excellent job of explaining what trolling really is.[11] There are some disgusting trolls out there. But Jagz is not one of them. Rude? Sometimes, definitely. Fringe POV-pusher? Maybe, maybe not. Troll? Nope. --Elonka 01:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Trolldom is hardly the only offense for which one can be banned. What I'm seeing from you and Ludwigs is a pathetic attempt to ignore the evidence (and I'll bet you've not trawled yet) and the implicit assertion that, at the very least, Vickers and slrubenstein are, at best, cognitively dissonant, and at worst, lying. Your defense of Jagz is rather troubling given your penchant for warning others for far less serious "crimes". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

well, Jim, all I can say is that I wish we had some darned evidence to ignore. talk about pathetic... You seem to think that you can say whatever nasty thing you want to say about someone, and the rest of us ought to believe it because... because... (please picture me waving my hands around, trying to find a meaningful explanation of this). and NOW you seem to be suggesting that there's some other non-troll reason that Jagz should have been banned for. why don't we just cut to the chase and recognize that you think Jagz ought to remain banned because you don't like him, and any further discussion is simply epiphenomenal to that fact.

I swear, I have never seen so many people who get so up in arms over a simple request for information. If you have evidence to present, take the time and effort to present it. if you don't, what are you doing here? --Ludwigs2 02:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(interpost)I liked the dating comment. :)

Slrubenstein explained to all here what to look at -- as he noted it is not a matter of single instances, it is a matter of a pattern: a pattern that Jagz has displayed for two years. And yes, not being willing to take the time to read through the history and to analyze the data collected is pathetic: unless you, Elonka and others are willing to do the homework nothing will be learned and nothing will be resolved. Think of it as an extension of Academia. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, Jagz was an inveterate pov-pusher, that's something that numerous good faith, experienced and productive editors who had to put up with his behaviour for years have attested to. This is a pattern of behaviour, that means that the provision of a few diffs cannot resolve the situation. Pov pushing is a problem on Wikipedia, it is characterised by an ongoing pattern of behaviour. If Elonka or yourself really were interested in being productive you could have investigated this more thoroughly. Instead Elonka has gone out of her way to imply that a great many excellent editors have "tarred and feathered" Jagz (an unfortunate use of words considering that it was Jagz himself who was promoting racism here), and you, true to form, have jumped in to demand that pov-pushing should be recognised as acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. To be frank you have no understanding of this situation, if you did you would not be demanding diffs, you would know that this man was a serial pov-pusher. You claim to have been the victim of "tag team" behaviour, so you should understand how frustrating it is to make sound edits only to be constantly reverted by someone with a pov to push. When numerous experienced editors attest that a single editor has been disruptive and damaging to the project, I fail to see why it should be these editors who are characterised as a "lynch mob". I don't understand why you feel so strongly about this, but you are speaking from the point of view of ignorance, and that is never a strong position, for example if you doubt Jagz's racist pov all you need do is read the edit summary on this edit: "biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven", that may give you some idea of the pov Jagz is pushing. My own personal problems with Jagz stem from the fact that I wanted to introduce a specific discussion regarding the meaning of Heritability to the article. I had been reading Race and IQ edited by Ashley Montagu. This book is a collection of essays and published scientific papers written by experts in anthropology, genetics, psychology, sociology and other relevant disciplines (for example Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, Walter Bodmer amongst others). Many of these papers discuss the misuse of heritability by researchers promoting racist ideas about "race and intelligence". As there was a book written by a number of world leaders in the field, I though it appropriate to include some of their analysis. Obviously this did not conform to the pov that Jagz and his "tag team" friend Legalleft wanted to push, so they simply removed my edit. This edit was not only sourced, but contained relevant information to the subject. The only possible reason for removal was due to pov-pushing, i.e. it contained a pov that was unacceptable to someone pushing a specific agenda. That was the last straw for me, I could handle Jagz's passive-aggressive attitude on the talk page, but this was beyond the pale, he was obviously determined to subvert Wikipedia to promote his personal beliefs.[12] [13] I was so angry that I left the article for a while and unwatched it. Sometimes it's best to walk away. A little later I tried to make a section dealing with the same subject a little more neutral,[14] by again introducing different points of view. Jagz's response was to slap OR and syn tags all over my edit.[15] This was extremely irritating and seems to have been a deliberate attempt to bait me. Baiting other editors was a strategy of Jagz's, he did it time and again on the talk page, as many people who had dealings with him here have attested. No one is making this up, had Jagz been a cooperative and consensual editor anyone would have been happy to work with him, whatever his personal opinions. But he was only interested in promoting a single point of view, and he went out of his way to remove or diminish any edit that did not conform to his own personal ideology. Those are the facts. Elonka is fretting over so called "civility", but she seems little concerned with the systematic attempts of Jagz to undermine the neutrality and accuracy of Wikipedia. Frankly I think Elonka should get her priorities straight. Civility is not, and never should be, a greater concern than the reliability of Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the discussion I gave the diff for, Jagz does not seem to have answered any question directly. He objected to a sentence (not written by me!) which made it clear that the work of Rushton and Lynn had not been accepted by mainstream scientists. He did disappear during mediation. He did ask Ramdrake about LGBT. He did ask to see Ramdrake's Ph.D. certificate. He did dismiss something I said on the grounds that I was French. He did claim to have retired from editing the article R&I. He did post surreal sections on the talk page of R&I like this [16]. He did insert unsourced and irrelevant remarks about biomedicine. He did forum shop. He also evaded his second block [17] with an edit similar to this one [18], and was blocked by MastCell. Even as User:Fat Cigar he did not edit any non race-related articles.

On the other hand, despite all this, I don't see why he can't be given a third chance as Elonka has suggested [19], with a different mentor than Elonka, who seems a little too personally involved with Jagz at this stage. He might also change his user name at the same time, to give him a fresh start. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Based on my own review, Jagz has effectively been tarred and feathered

I've asked Elonka several times to stop making this sort of vague attack on unnamed wikipedians. It's extremely counterproductive, these are weasel words, plain and simple. Elonks has repeatedly claimed that she's in favour of civility, but this sort of comment is not civil and not assuming good faith. I think it's fair to say that Elonks is being far from neutral and unbiased, when she portrays one set of editors as a lynch mob (but refuses to name them) while claiming that an inveterate POV pusher, who has been identified as such by a host of very experienced and productive editors, is somehow the victim here. Elonka's extreme and biased point of view in this situation should clearly mean that she should recuse herself from any dealings involving Jagz, and leave any unblocking to an unbiased admin. Alun (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I believe the result of the appeal should in effect render the discussion moot and close it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent - edit conflict) let me be clear about what I'm doing here. I'm not defending Jagz (whom I have never encountered, and who, for all I know, might be as bad as you all say), and I'm not arguing out of ignorance. I'm arguing out of principle. I know an awful lot about the human mind, enough to know that impressions of people are horribly unreliable guides to their actual nature. an impression of someone is just a story about them, often passed back and forth between people, magnified and abridged and confabulated, until it holds little real relationship to the person in question. did you know, for instance, that 'boogieman' is a corruption of the british 'boneyman', which was originally a reference to Napoleon Bonaparte? I sincerely doubt Napolean himself ever hid under some kid's bed... worse, once a particular impression of someone gets circulated, people start acting as though it were true, and then it becomes truly difficult to see the person or interact with him/her as anything except the impression. I am simply trying to get us all past the impressions of Jagz to look at what he was actually doing.

just to give an example, let me use the edit summary Alun gave above. Jagz changed the heading on the 'history' section of the Race and Identity article to 'African American history', with the summary "predominantly about African Americans and biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven". now, the first part of this summary is correct: the section really was about the history of Africans in America. the second part is also correct, but logically flawed and biased (you can't ever prove that two things are equal; best you can do is demonstrate that you don't have reason to believe they are different). but what I can't tell from it is whether Jagz is actually trying to suggest that some races are unequal, or whether he's being ham-handed in an effort to say that equality is an assumption (me, I would have approached that issue by questioning whether the concept of 'race' was a real distinction or just a social construct). in the next set of diffs that Alun gave (starting here, Jagz makes an innocuous set of edits to shift a paragraph and add the clarifying terms nature and nurture, legalleft makes a very questionable deletion of an entire section [20], Alun reinserts the section [21] with an argumentative edit summary ( what is wrong with you, you really can't stand to see any neutrality here at all can you), and Jagz reverts him[22] with an equally argumentative summary. that strikes me more as a bad reaction than racism. the section itself (at that time) borders on SYN, so it probably should have been discussed rather than reverted.

and then there's this [23], which as Ramdrake said was not in the best of taste, but which seemed more of a joke based on the previous edit (which added a roman Phallic statue).

the impression I'm getting from these new diffs (thank you for supplying them, by the way) is that Jagz is (...comment removed as innappropriate) but I'm still not seeing the overt racism or trollishness being claimed for him. on user pages (like the earlier quote about MastCell and the defacing of Mathsci's page, which were uncalled for) Jagz seems to be prone to losing his cool, but in article content not so much. for instance, he could have easily used the N word instead of saying 'African American history', or he could have said somewhere outright that he thought some races were inferior (which is what I would expect from a racist - they don't tend to be soft-spoken about their beliefs), and he could have done a lot more to goad people. Mostly I see him editing more or less constructively with an irritable attitude, but that is such a normal state of affairs on highly contentious articles that I'm not certain it justifies calling him a troll. but still that's just my impression. see what I'm getting at here?--Ludwigs2 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(to ramdrake) it certainly does that. --Ludwigs2 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't rally think that your comments are relevant. Whether you personally see that jagz was overtly racist or not is irrelevant, whether you think he's poor at communication or not is irrelevant. Indeed an editor being racist is certainly no justification for blocking them, basically I don't care if Jagz is a racist, but I do care when he pushed a racist pov and is not prepared to accept that the views he is pushing are biased and deforming the article. I don't care what you personally "see", we're not talking about your personal impression. Frankly you appear to be willing to interpret any criticism of Jagz as overblown, and appear not to be interested that a large group of editors who actually do have experience with him (which you do not) are saying that his pattern of editing was biased and disruptive. It's odd that you claim not to be writing from a perspective of ignorance, while at the same time admitting that you have personally had no interaction with Jagz. These positions are mutually exclusive. The fact that you have never had dealings with him is proof that you are writing from a position of ignorance regarding his disruptive pov-pushing. As usual you have tried to shift the discussion to something tangential and generally irrelevant to the subject at hand. Jagz was a pov-pusher, that is the subject at hand, I provided the diff regarding his racist edit summary so you would understand conclusively what his pov actually is. I did leave an angry edit summary, I was angry and fed up with the pov-pushing of a set of editors who were prepared to do just about anything to remove any criticism of the position they held. These two editors could and did remove my edit because it did not conform to their personal beliefs, and I had to accept this because I was a single editor against two, so they could always have reverted more times than I could. In the past you have stated that this is "tag teaming". Personally I don't think that Jagz and Legalleft were "tag teaming", I just think they were two editors with the same pov to push who wanted to suppress information that contradicted them. There is no evidence that they were part of a cabal. Legalleft's pov can be seen from the fact that he created the article African IQ (now deleted). That article was the product of a single published paper. When I checked, the paper in question had been written by a non-scientist who is heavily involved with the racist web site Gene Expression, Jason Malloy. A little investigation on my part showed that the references list of the article cited sources that did not make the same claims that were made in the article. The whole article was a massive synthesis loosely held together by a single source that lacked any credibility.[24] You appear to be saying that this is only a "minor" problem. I disagree, pov-pushing is a major problem in Wikipedia, and seriously undermines the project. Your comments about Jagz's edits are also irrelevant, I don't think anyone has claimed that every single edit of his contained no value. A large proportion of his editing at R&I was simply moving large portions of text around, as you point out. While this is annoying and generally pointless, and generally contributed zero to the article, it is not necessarily pov-pushing. What I object to, and strongly, is the removal of well sourced and relevant material from reliable sources simply because it does not conform to the bias of a particular editor. You have in the past claimed to have had similar problems, that editors have removed your edits simply because they did not like the fact that these included a pov that they personally didn't like. As such I'm surprised that you now seem to think that removal of material so an article can give a biased pov is perfectly acceptable. Alun (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2, you bring up a good example with "biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven" that i think shows the dangers of looking at things out of context. What do I mean by context? Well, a few things, actually. This is going to be a long response to your comment but you resplied ot my last comment with a very courteous and respectful disagreement so I believe I owe you an equally respectful and more thoughtful response.

Of course I mean the context of the two or more year discussions on the race and IQ talk page that led to Jagz being indef. blocked. But I also mean the context for published debates over race and IQ, contexts that belong in the article itself. The complicated thing about the race and IQ article (so complicated that some have proposed simply deleting it and sometimes I think they are right) is that it refers to two different things: a very notable debate among the general public, politicians, and civic leaders, and a very fringe debate among scientists. It is a fringe debate - rather than non-existent debate - among scientists because as in so many things science and politics/public policy intersect. If you can imagine using venn diagrams, imagine two big circles that have a relatively small overlap. I say relatively small because most scientists are not addressing public policy questions, and most of the general public and policy makers and politicians really do not follow the science. But there is a small overlap. The two circles provide us with the two contexts that belong in this article (if indeed there should be one article).

In the "politics and policy" circle there is a long history of people using claims about racial differences to justify social, political and economic inequalities. This is very well-documented in the United States but has been documented in many other parts of the world as well. The problem with these debates, from a scientist's point of view (and when I refer to such views, they have all been published) is that "race" is being used two ways: to identify people, and to identify a cause. And all evolutionary scientists, geneticists, and anthropologists (the disciplines or subdisciplines that study human races or human biology/genetics) agree that these two things are actually separate, completely different. When most people use "race" to identify groups of people, they are not referring to anything that can be called a biological cause (there are some scientists who have tried to redefine race so it can be used biologically, but they are a minority - a respected minority - among scientists and obviously what they mean by race is not what most non-scientists mean by race). When politicians and policy makers try to explain social, economic, or political inequalities (which they want to do if they want to promote fairer social systems) they leave the terrain of the life sciences and enter that of the social sciences and virtually all social scientists have said "race is a major site of inequality, and the causes are historical and political and economic."

In the other circle, the other context, you have scientists who study biological differences among humans, including genetic differences that cause such things like blood type or sickle-cell anemia and they are virtually unanimous in concluding that the term "race" is such a vague and blunt term that it has no value in analyzing these problems; it's like asking a surgeon to operate using a butter-knife. The butter-knife is real, it just isn't part of the surgeon's tool-kit. The very small overlap is filled by a small group of people who are not trained in, or experts in, genetics - mostly psychologists - who do claim that race is biologically real and that the social differences among races are the results of biological differences. This space exists because these are academics explicitly addressing policy concerns - they are literally speaking to politicians and civil leaders and a popular audience. Their work has been almost universally rejected by other social scientists and by life scientists. It exists because it is intelligible to and useful to some politicians (in a way that work by real geneticists is not helpful).

Now the context of the arguments on the talk page that got Jagz blocked. I and several other editors insisted that if a claim about human biology was being made in the article, for us to consider it a significant view from a reliable source it had to come from someone recognized for their expertise in biology. Moreover, we wanted to make sure that the mainstream life science and mainstream social science research was adequately represented. Now let's return to what jagz wrote: "biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven" This is a tendentious and misleading sentence in a number of ways. First of all, virtually all social scientists will agree that races are unequal, and a good deal of social science is aimed at explaining this inequality. Jagz would regularly argue with us that we were pushing some egalitarian POV that says all races are equal. I and others would write at length about social science research trying to explain racial inequality, and we would add that to the article, and Jagz would keep arguing that we were denying inequality. It got very tiring. Second, biologists and population geneticists and molecular geneticists simply do not use race in this way, and whenever jagz would point to biological differences we would have to take time to explain why geneticists do not mean what he means by race, or are not using the word race at all. It got tiring. Jagz was not a vandal; his incivility was not the issue. One problem was that for two years editors like myself who had done research on this and were trying to add material had to take time out to keep giving jagz the same explanations. His talk, which only ever kept repeating the same ignorant points over and over, took up space on the talk page that should have gone to improving the article. Another problem: we never wrote that all races are equal. In fact, all we ever wrote was summaries of what researchers wrote. That is because we were busy reading peer-reviewed journal articles and academic textbooks. Jagz didn't. He just kept wanting to argue that Whites are naturally superior to Blacks. We were not even arguing the opposite - we were arguing that the bulk of the article should give an account of mainstream science. Mainstream scientists do try to prove that all races are equal for reasons you elegantly explained. It is just not what mainstream scientists are debating. so Second, Jagz kept trying to redefine what the article was about in terms of his interests and away from the actual debates found in mainstream life and social science literature. That is the second way in which he was a troll. Now, sometimes people familiar with the psychology/public policy literature (that small section where the two circles overlap) came in. Clearly, they knew the literature they were citing. The problem for us - I mean, good faith editors - is that the literature they were bringing is fringe in the social sciences, and fringe in the life sciences, but notable in public-policy discussions. So we had to work out a fair NPOV way to present the material, not an easy job. Every time a couple of editors (I provided a dif above) with opposing views started reaching some agreement, started building a productive consensus, Jagz would interrupt with an inane comment, sometimes insulting one of the editors, and often created a new section and raised all sorts of questions to sidetrack the discussion. This too got wearying. Yes, you can say: ignore it. We did our best for almost two years, but there is only so long that people can make progress on a page when one troll is trying to dominate the discussion. So, third he was consistently disruptive of any attempt to reach consensus among people with opposing views or concerns. There is one last way in which he was a troll. Our policy makes it clear that someone who makes a racist statement aimed directly at another editor is violating policy. But how do we handle someone who makes blanket statements against a race, directed at no one in particular? If I am not Black, I cannot accuse jagz of violating policy because he is not directing it at me. But it gets worse; what about Black editors? Jagz is not directing his statements to any one editor personally. But he is asserting that there is a significant body of scientific evidence that Blacks are naturally less intelligent than Whites. How is a Black wikipedian to respond? Now, if you are not from the US - if you are not from a country in which (1) there is enough racial heterogeneity that racism is a serious problem and (2) people have been trying to confront racism openly - you may not understand this at first, and I can only ask you to try, but it is very hard for a member of a particular race to take racist comments as anything but personal, even if they are made generically. So here is a fourth way Jagz was a troll: he drove Black editors away from working on the page. Now, we all know Wikipedia editors are not as divers a bunch as we wish they were. And diversity is valuable not in and of itself, but because editors with different backgrounds bring different skills and bodies of knowledge. Over the past four or more years many editors have come to the R&I page and have tried to add verifiable significant views from reliable sources about the history of racist science and the racism of people like Rushton, only to be told that Rushton is a scientist (he has a PhD in psychology; he has never done original research in biology or genetics and has no training in these fields) and a respected scientist and has compelling evidence that Blacks are naturally inferior to Whites. Ludwigs2, this has driven away good editors and it frankly, as long as jagz was editing, made the page and the talk page a humiliation to Wikipedia.

My point is that Jagz knew that what he wrote was tendentious and provocative, because we had all explained to him many times that no one is claiming that races are not equal. This is what is missing from your analysis – you are analyzing his comment as if it came out of nowhere. But it didn’t, he was responding to two years of discussion in which every time he made a point we would ask "what is your source" and he would provide a source that did not back up his point (or ignore the request), and we (me, Alun, others) always provided sources for our claims. So for him to shift the discussion from "what do the sources say" to "No one can prove this" is really disruptive. Look, if I made an edit "According to Flannery, one problem with Rushton's arguments is that he does not take into account the way that the scale by which IQ exams were scored has changed over time" and you added a tag saying that I was violating NPOV and then commented "This is wrong because you cannot prove all races are equal," what would you do? No, don't tell me - just imagine what you would do. Now imagine that you did that, and six months later, twelve months later, your edits are getting the same comments or revisions from Jagz. Imagine that no matter how you respond, how much you explain the sources, or policy, or no matter how many time you ask Jagz for his sources, his responses never change, they do not change over two years. It is this pattern over more than a year that lead me to conclude he was a troll. It took me a very long time before I just realized that there is a perfect Wikipedia policy for dealing with Jagz, and I was convinced that the only way for many editors to work together on the article was to follow this most excellent Wikipedia policy: WP:DNFTT. Once I realized that this was the way to move forward, not to attack Jagz but simply to ignore him, I started encouraging my fellow editors to stop writing the same long explanations to him that they had written dozens of times before and focus on the article. I am glad i did - the article began to move forward.

You think racists are only people who say "kike" or "nigger" or "spic?" I am afraid you are wrong – racism takes many different forms; American history has revealed a wide range of them. And you are also, I say this with respect and good faith, naïve about trolls. Of course had jagz expressed his hatred explicitly he would have been banned (the second time he was blocked, he did so because he crossed the line in a spectacular way). But this is not what makes someone a troll! A troll is the person who resists doing these things, who disrupts and offends and always has an excuse that if anything forces people to waste more time dealing with him.

Now, this was a very long comment but I am summarizing two years of history for you. I am not going to go back and find all the little edit difs, especially when most of them by themselves are innocuous. This is the difference between a troll and a vandal: vandals make edits that are obvious garbage. Trolls work more innocuously, through a pattern of edits that have profound disruptive effects even if no one is a policy violation. The bottom line is simple: Jagz never added anything valuable to the page, he never gave any indication of doing real research or knowing anything about social science or life science. he hung around for two years only to disrupt work on the article and use the talk page to keep pushing his racist views. He added nothing, and took a lot (spiritually I mean) and his being blocked did no damage at all to Wikipedia but removed the principal obstacle to progress on the R&I page. This to me is a no-brainer. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"biased because it assumes all races are equal, something never proven" speaks volumes. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I confess I haven't read it, but dude, you get the prize for the longest post I've ever seen. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

well, it's too bad I wasn't there for those discussions. I can think of a half dozen theories to balance that kind of opinion, starting with Wallerstein's argument that race is primarily a social construction designed to explain away differences in wealth and status (i.e., it produces less cognitive dissonance to think that that group of people is poor and unsuccessful because they are of a different race, than to think that they're poor and unsuccessful because someone has to be poor and unsuccessful for us to be well-off). probably I'm too soft-hearted, but I hate to see anyone get banned without being absolutely sure there's no other recourse. But since ArbCom seems to agree, and I doubt they would make that decision lightly, I'll just have to grant that there's more going on here than I can see.

and it wasn't that long of a post. --Ludwigs2 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

P.s. oh, and I lived in Baltimore for five years, which taught me volumes about race and prejudice. there's a park there with a statue of US Grant on the north side and a statue of RE Lee on the south side, which pretty much explains everything. --Ludwigs2 00:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can always use help at the article - but honestly, at this stsge we nee dmorehelp researaching articles and books than just editing ...Slrubenstein | Talk 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation about E1b1b

Hi Elonka. See this 3RR case. I noticed that a mediation was started in August, and you're listed as an involved party. Not clear if it is worth trying to get the mediator to nudge the participants one more time. They seem to have a lot of mutual bad feeling. Do you have any ideas for how to resolve this? EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Lucius Valerius Flaccus

I'm almost certain, and will soon assume, that you meant (in the part i've bolded in copying from your talk msg)

take all the info and source from the "disambig" page, and merge it into this one, perhaps as a section entitled "Other uses of the name" or "Other individuals named Lucius Valerius Flaccus"

what one might state as "the article accompanying this talk page". Please forgive my intolerance of ambiguity, and if i'm about to act on the wrong interpretation, lemme know ASAP! Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

I'm about to head to bed, but if you email me now I'll reply with copies of the pages in question. I'm about to head to bed and will handle it in the morning otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sent, and thanks!  :) --Elonka 03:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Goodnight. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you try to have me banned from wikipedia for (valiantly) attempting to make this article more accurate? Anyway, apparently I'm not well-connected enough to contest your strangle-hold on this article, but that doesn't change the fact that "incorrectly linked" is not in any way a proveable statement. (Neither snopes, urban legends, nor a single 1957 article disprove this.) Since my "frequently linked" is not up to you and your friends liking, perhaps you can reword it yourself with something that is actually honest and truthful. Thanks in advance. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcob44 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome efforts to make the Knights Templar or Friday the 13th articles more accurate. However, to do this, you would need to be able to provide reliable sources with which any new information can be verified. Instead, you seem to be deleting existing sources, and then stating what you "logically" believe, without providing any new sources. If you do locate any new sources, I and the other editors on those articles would be happy to review them, so that we can reach a consensus on how to to best present any new theories with the appropriate weight. --Elonka 04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me to provide you with sourced references that the Templars are "frequently linked" to the origin for the Friday the 13th superstition? If so, will two dozen or so suffice? And although you seem to prefer snopes and urbanlegends, can I use actual books instead? In case you are not aware, the internet is hardly a reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcob44 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, show me what you've got. --Elonka 04:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually going to change "incorrectly linked" to "frequently linked" on this article- excuse me, I mean *your* article? Otherwise, what is the point of me doing so (other than letting you waste even more of my time)? BTW- All three of your sources still do not disprove this connection, so why do you continue to say "incorrectly linked"? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcob44 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the urbanlegends article you cited regarding the Templar origins for the Friday the 13th superstition, "Even more problematic, for this or any other theory positing premodern origins for Friday the 13th superstitions, is the fact that no one has been able to document the existence of such beliefs prior to the 19th century. If people who lived before the late 1800s perceived Friday the 13th as a day of special misfortune, no evidence has been found to prove it. As a result, some scholars are now convinced the stigma is a thoroughly modern phenomenon exacerbated by 20th-century media hype." Logically, if "some scholars are now convinced", this means that some scholars are also unconvinced. Therefore, your statement "incorrectly linked" is, quite simply, incorrect. Of course, I would love to change the word "incorrectly" to "frequently", but I think Elonka owes it to herself to make this change personally. And although a formal apology would be nice, I will not further provoke her wrath for daring to touch her article;) tcob44 28-10-2008 6:50am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.42.112 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The case against "incorrectly connected": —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.2 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1.) If the 1307 event is the source of the superstition, this does not mean that it is ancient. A modern group of 'Templar-o-philes' could have originated it in the last two centuries. Countless modern secret societies, spanning the spectrum from Freemasons to the Rosicrucians, have claimed to be the descendants from the Templars. Any one of these groups could have been responsible for the origin. Not to mention, the Freemasons happen to be the most widespread and influential secret society in history. This is why the superstition is "frequently connected" to the Templars. Google books will confirm this statement. Even snopes and urbanlegends have made this connection, however, they state that this origin is not proven. Therefore, your wording is still wrong.

2.) You are correct, if the superstition did originate within a century after the 1307 event, it probably would have been mentioned in books or poems. But not necessarily. Especially considering its lack of importance as superstitions are hardly a hot topic. Regardless, the survival of these types of documents would be rare. Historically speaking, paper documents don't last more than a few centuries. That's not including the chances of their destruction or suppression. For example, the Roman Catholic church has literally wiped the history of their enemies off the face of the planet. Like the Cathars. Point in fact, had the Vatican not released the document which exonerated the Templars, the world would never had known the true history of the Templar trial. Never. And they were the largest, wealthiest, and most influential multi-national organization of their time. Yet most Templar experts acknowledge the fact that there is very little in the way of hard evidence about this organization. This is due to the fact that they were successfully suppressed by King Philip and the Vatican, despite their exoneration (apparently the Pope was pressured by Philip.)

3.) Your *own sources* declare that tracing the origins of superstitions is "mostly guesswork". In addition, only "some experts" are convinced it is a modern superstition. These are your own sources, Elonka! How can you possibly make the claim "incorrectly connected"?!? Not to mention, if you'd bother to do a search on "Google books", you'd notice that there are dozens of historians and authors who "frequently connect" the Templars to the origin of the superstition. Not to mention the hundreds of books whose content is not yet on Google, written by both experts and amateurs, which make this same connection. To say "incorrectly connected" is incorrect and you know it. Your *own* sources declare simply that "some experts" believe it is a modern connection. Not all experts. Not even a majority of experts.

4.) The bottom line is nobody knows the origin of the superstition. Plain and simple. Which does not rule out the Templars (a modern origin or ancient). And if you'd actually read your own sources, you'd notice that they don't even claim to have disproven the connection. (Mainly because they don't even have a plausible alternative historical date, ancient or modern). They merely state there is no documented evidence for the connection. And then they hedge their bets by stating that their research is "mostly guesswork". Therefore, your statement "incorrectly connected" is still wrong. Sorry.

tcob44 Oct28,2008 4:00pm EST

In order to sign a post, add four tildes to it, like this: ~~~~ --Elonka 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hemanshu

Centralizing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hemanshu. MBisanz ^talk 12:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment

Hi, Elonka. The inherent significance of changes to the harassment policy should be self-evident, as well as the likelihood that good, substantive reasons for alterations to that policy might not be appropriate for complete open discussion onsite. Three times now I have invited e-mail contact from Wikipedians who doubt the good faith and substantive nature of my contributions there to contact me via e-mail. I have received no e-mail from you despite your continued posts. On neither of the two recent times when I attempted to e-mail you did you reply. This is cause for concern.

Has there been some good faith technical glitch getting in the way, such as a change in your e-mail service? I didn't get an 'undeliverable' message on either of the recent times I tried to contact you.

I would like to straighten things out if it's possible, because on both occasions you followed up by posting public insinuations of improper conduct. Per WP:AGF, impropriety should be the last conclusion rather than the first. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Use

Over at my talk page, QuackGuru has stated that he is welcome to comment at any user's talk page, per your direction. I have advised him that he is not welcome at my talk page. I understand that he is welcome to post any relevant warnings on my page, however I don't see that his comments on my page will further dispute resolution at all. In general I find QuackGuru to be a disruptive editor, and have demonstrated several of his IDHT violations at Talk:Chiropractic. I don't feel that him commenting on my userpage will be productive at all. DigitalC (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, it does look like some of QG's comments have not been as collegial as they might have been. On the other, you can't really tell someone to "stay off" your talkpage if they have a legitimate comment about an article that you're both working on. That's what talkpages are for, is to enable editors to communicate with each other about articles. So as long as you're both working on Chiropractic, it's reasonable for QG to communicate with you about it. However, this doesn't mean that he can just use your talkpage to give you directives or unreasonable warnings, or to repeat the same comment over and over. Another thing to keep in mind, is that just because someone has posted on your talkpage, does not mean that you have to reply, or even keep the message there. You might look at the history of Levine2112's talkpage to see how he is dealing with the situation. My best advice is to just stay cool, and let the diffs pile up. Don't worry so much about what QuackGuru is doing, just stay focused on the Chiropractic article. If you really feel like you need to do something else though, you might wish to post a note at User talk:Tim Vickers, as I know that he's very interested in what QuackGuru is doing right now, so I'm sure he'd be interested in what you have to say. Tim is a real stickler for courtesy, btw, so if you do post there, do your best to be very polite and understated.  :) --Elonka 14:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this doesn't read well to me, what happened to WP:AGF? It sounds like you are giving direction on how to be rude which I am sure you don't intend for this to be since you are so strong on WP:Civil behavior. Sorry for butting in, please continue your discussion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Coal mining

Just a quick thanks for archiving the Coal mining talk page!--Kelapstick (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I love to archive.  :) You are very welcome, --Elonka 14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reflist

Since the reflist template was altered a month ago, it no longer renders properly when split into colums. See here for a lopside split of the columns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reported this at Template talk:Reflist, and if you see any others, definitely bring them up! --Elonka 14:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce

User Redspruce is up to old tricks again. I think his new strategy is to just wait a month, hope everyone forgot about him, and just remove all the quotes yet again. He has been blocked twice more since you blocked him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He is starting to go through the articles one by one again. He has now moved here stripping the quotes, and removing information I am adding, and not leaving an edit summary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in looking at this AN/I thread too, as it relates. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Miwok Airways

An article that you have been involved in editing, Miwok Airways, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miwok Airways. Thank you. Eastmain (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please

Never post on my talkpage again. If you need to place a warning or comment, get another Wikipedian or administrator to do it. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ScienceApologist, you can't just tell uninvolved admins to go away. A better option would be to heed my advice: Stay civil, don't edit-war, do engage at talkpages, do follow the normal steps of dispute resolution, do heed the ArbCom restrictions which were placed on your behavior from cases such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Elonka 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it like to live in a world where those who either disagree with you or who wish you to abide by the same standards of behavior as everyone else are not worthy of respect? Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt SA is completely in his rights to use an automated tool to rollback all of your posts on his talk page. In this context, advising you that it's futile to post on his talk page is perfectly ok. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, per WP:BLANKING, ScienceApologist absolutely has the right to remove any posts which I place on his page (with certain exceptions such as unblock templates). I don't believe I ever said that he couldn't? --Elonka 16:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, glad we agree. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic thread

ah, well, read Kohlberg. People are where they are... add that group dynamics can easily drop everyone involved a level, as can strong emotions, as can anonymity, distance, and other forms of social disengagement, and wiki-dynamics actually starts to make a kind of perverse sense. heck, I usually top out at stage six by all the measures, and I still find myself occasionally getting involved in spitball wars over article disagreements. C'est la vie... --Ludwigs2 05:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ever hear of the G.I.F.T.?[25]  :) --Elonka 05:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

lol - errr... can I return that GIFT, or at least exchange it for store credit? truly not the kind of thing I'd buy for myself.

there's actually a fascinating paper in this, if I ever get the time (and cojones) to write it. there's an intellectual movement in various corners of the social sciences to advocate Internet Democracy: easy access and anonymity are supposed to foster public debate, circumvent problems related to prejudice and partisanship, and provide an endless supply of information for informed reasoning. yet I think I was on WP maybe ten minutes before I realized that the community had simply created new, abstract forms of prejudice (e.g. this whole science/pseudoscience thing, though there are several others), and taken to some fairly sophisticated forms of disinformation and political pressure to back them up. Wikipedia might be the test-case that single-handedly debunks a really nice, idealistic theory. Don't know whether to laugh or cry... --Ludwigs2 06:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's always Robert Wilensky's famous quote: "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the internet, we know that is not true."  ;) --Elonka 06:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OH my heavens! that one is going straight into my class syllabus. LmfAo! --Ludwigs2 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify on G.I.F.T., I linked you to my blog above, but the blog was in reference to this Penny Arcade comic:[26] --Elonka 16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) Ah, I see it's so popular there's actually a paragraph about it on Wikipedia! --Elonka 16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Related to the above. I've endorsed your warnings at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Back to ScienceApologist. I've also pointed out a few of the other discussions. Is this being discussed anywhere else? Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for block and delete

Thanks for your block of impersonation account IAmReallyKenBayfield and speedy deletion of vandalism article Demand Media. This appears to be spillover from blocks of other sockpuppets and related request for checkuser. Most of all, grateful that your vigilance protects LP Ken Bayfield, who's being dragged in by vandal in a case of mistaken identity. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help! --Elonka 19:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi, I created an article earlier (District B13 Ultimatum) and it was deleted by you with the reason "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page." I did not request the deletion of the page or blank that page. I did blank the temporary page I had in my User space, but not the main article. Can you restore the page or do I have to create it again? Thanks --The Son of Man (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you accidentally blanked the live page instead of your userpage. I went ahead and restored the article: District B13 Ultimatum. If you'd like your user subpage deleted, I can do that too, but be careful of those redirects!  :) --Elonka 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be more careful in the future. And yes, could you please delete user subpage. Thanks for restoring the article. --The Son of Man (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)