User talk:Elonka/Archive 18

Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
This is really strange - I had previously formally notified ChrisO about the above case, last week. The user even acknowledged the message positively on my talk page. This was when I attempted to intervene as a neutral party, something I quickly threw my hands up over and exited - I salute you for your patience. But for seem reason Moreschi seems to have edited through protection to remove ChrisO from the list - this is damned odd. Kelly  hi! 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I understand it, there was a discussion about who was allowed to place editors on the list, and the decision was, "Only uninvolved admins." I think it's somewhere in the SlimVirgin ANI thread. --Elonka 01:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. I guess only admins can deal with ARBPIA issues, as opposed to neutral editors. Not as if admins have other stuff to do. :) I'm sure the notification has a different meaning coming from an uninvolved admin as opposed to a peon uninvolved editor. :) Kelly  hi! 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I went back and looked at that thread and it said nothing of the sort. The consensus seemed to be that a trip back to ArbCom would be necessary in order to limit notifications to admins. Kelly  hi! 02:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a matter of interpretation. I've been involved with Arbitration Enforcement on multiple cases (as has Rlevse), and the general procedure that we follow on other similar cases that you might see at General sanctions, is that it takes an "uninvolved admin".  So that's what's being followed at the P-I case, even though it's not explicitly stated as such on that particular case page.  If you'd like to file a request for clarification at WP:RFAR, you are welcome to do so. Some might perceive it as a  teensy bit wikilawyering and WP:POINTy, but then again, it could be good to get a formal signoff from ArbCom on it. So up to you if you'd like to file the paperwork or not, but I'm 95% sure what the answer will be. --Elonka 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, no thanks. I see what camp you're in. Leaving now....  Kelly  hi! 02:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, that wasn't a threat. If I'm thinking about taking action against someone, I give them a clear "warning shot across the bow" at their talkpage first.  You're safe.  :) There's nothing wrong with asking legitimate good-faith questions. --Elonka 02:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for repeatedly assuming good faith. It is hard work to stand up for someone who is wrong but defenseless, and I am very glad to see you do this on a number of occasions. As someone who makes several thousand mistakes a day, it warms my heart to see someone willing to work with those last few people who are not yet perfect. JackSchmidt (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology
Elonka, please accept my apology for questioning your integrity. I have been frustrated by the way things were going at the al Dura article and felt that one POV was getting a free ride. Your recent actions have restored my faith that you are a fair mediator, sorry for jumping the gun. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, and don't worry, I didn't take it personally. There are lots of complicated emotional factors at play here, and I'm well aware of that.  Just do your best to stay as civil as possible in the future, and I'll be happy.  :) --Elonka 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Restriction
I understand the need to take a even hand against both sides however the edit in question was explained very well in the edit summary. The al dura incident took place on Sep 30, 2000 while the source ChrisO used to justify "widespread violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" was from Oct 2nd. So his edit – while not being relevant had created a wrong impression that replaced between the cause and the outcome.

It was the report on al-dura death (broadcast on Sep 30th) that sparked the clashes that took place in Oct 1st and Oct 2nd – those clashes are the one reported by the source mention in the line that I removed.

So to summarize: There was a very good cause to remove this line as it was not relevant to the subject matter and actually creating a false impression by using a source that is dated two days after the event (to describe the so events that led to Al-dura incident) Clearly events on Oct 1st and 2nd can not describe the atmosphere leading into an event that took place on Sep 30th. I would appreciate if you reconsider the restriction as there was no violation of the editing rules involved.--Julia1987 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you are still allowed to edit the talkpage, you may wish to start a section on this there. If other editors agree with you, someone else can make any necessary changes, as long as they comply with the Conditions for editing. And again, I strongly encourage you to get involved with editing other articles, not just one. --Elonka 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have started to edit in my area of expertise(Chemistry) : maybe I'll add more.--Julia1987 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That one edit from a week ago is a good sign. :) You'll need more though to balance out your contribs. Ideally try to find a balance where at least half your edits are in non-controversial areas. But in the meantime I'd like to see you have edits on at least five other articles.  If you need help finding something to do, try something like WP:CLEANUP, Category:Articles that need to be wikified or Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. Or if you'd like to stay in the Israel/Palestine topic area, we could use some help in expanding source articles. For example: List of newspapers in Israel still has lots of redlinks, and we don't even have a List of newspapers in Palestine yet, though there's Category:Palestinian media which could really use one. Making some stubs for sources would be really helpful. --Elonka 20:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi
I believe this answers your question. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) --Elonka 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz
Hi Elonka, thanks for your message on my talk page. All I can say is I began calling Jagz a troll, and urging other editors on the page not to "feed the troll," only after I was convinced that he is a troll. I do not consider this incivility: the open nature of Wikipedia means that we will attract a variety of editors spanning a whole range of virtues and vices. Some are trolls, and they disrupt the real job of the project which is to write a quality encyclkopedia, and at least on race related pages, Jagz has done just (and only just) that. As I explained on AN/I, I also only reached this conclusion after jagz refused at least two attemps at or requests for mediation. Be that as it may, if he is not editing race related articles I see no cause for conflict between us. I only commented on his talk page because he made a comment concerning my motives. That comment was false. I assure you that for better or worse my comment is a truthful account of my motives. I appreciate the good intentions of any editor who tries to resolve a dispute but given a couple of failed tries for mediation and pointles RFCs at this point I see no dispute to be resolved; Jagz has been blocked and I am sure you know and understand that blocks are never punative, they are meant to prevent disruption. Be that as it may you have made several claims on the AN/I page and I and I think two other editors have asked to to provide some evidence supporting your claims. I say your message upon turning on my computer and came here to respond immediately so I have not yet seen your answers at AN/I but if you have not yet had time to provide your evidence, I sincerely hope you do. As for me, as I said, as long as Jagz is blocked from race related articles I see no cause for any other kind of interaction between us; I will only comment on the situation again if it is to respond directly to a direct comment he or someone else makes about me. Best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :)  I would also see it as a sign of good faith if you would reconsider your comment at Jagz's talkpage, and refactor anything which might be regarded as uncivil.  It would be a powerful statement that I'm sure that other editors would pick up on, and I think it would help de-escalate things all around. --Elonka 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck it out, with a brief explanation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

NB two comments for you in response to your post, on my talk page. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, II
At your request, I struck out what you thought was a provocative comment I wrote on jagz' user page. I did this in good faith, and as a gesture of good faith. What was jag's response? This:. Let me note that Epf Ramdrake and I were involved in a conflict that the three of us managed to resolve by ourselves, without mediation, to everyone's satisfaction. Please, elonka, tell me why jagz wrote this. is he trying to make me look bad? Is he trying to stir up new conflict between me and Epf? Please tell me what his motive was. And this is after I struck out the comment you asked me to, and agreed that I would not object if the indef block were lifted. Please tell me, is this how you have been mentoring Jagz? Di you encourage him to do this? Is this how you expect us to move beyond our conflicts? What more do you want from me before Jagz stops being uncivil and disruptive? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking out the post. :)  As for you and Epf, I really haven't dug into anything. I noticed that Jagz's diff was fairly old, but that was about it.  As for what I'd like from  you, I'm concerned that you're reading a lot more into that one comment by Jagz than is really warranted.  Like "Is he trying to make me look bad?"  In whose eyes?  Mine? My honest opinion is that your reactions are being more defensive than needed. I'd say shrug it off, and go on and do whatever else on Wikipedia you want to do be doing.  Do you think that you'd be comfortable in removing Jagz's talkpage from your watchlist? It might make things less stressful for you. --Elonka 23:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jagz' talk page is not on my watchlist, and i am not stressed out. My question was not about me an Epf, it was about me and Jagz.  And my question really was all it seemed to be: what do you think his intention was in writing that comment?  Yes, he was refering to something that happened a long time ago - so ... why?  You said you wanted to mentor Jagz as a condition of his being unblocked.  I want to know what you mean by "mentoring" and the way I can know is if you can tell me what his intention was in posting that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a mindreader, I have no idea what his intention was. I could guess that he's blocked and bored and saw someone he didn't know posting a message on his talkpage, so he dug in to see why that editor was even noticing about him, and then he saw that you and the editor had been in a prior dispute and commented on it.  So it may have been as simple as pointing out, "Ah, that's why he posted," or it may have had some other meaning, I don't know. I don't see his comment as particularly disruptive, especially because he's still limited to his own talkpage, and you had just posted a somewhat uncivil comment to him.  If anything, I thought he acted with civility and restraint. --Elonka 06:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, you do not have to be a mindreader but if you want to mentor Jagz you have to communicate with him, and you definitely need to read what he writes more carefully. You guess that he "saw someone he did not know posting on his talkpgage, so he dug in to see why that editor was noticing him" when you know full well that he knows who I am, and that when I posted my explanation for using the WP:DNFTT link (which as I emphasized I struck out, in part at your request) I was responding to a comment he made on his own talk page.  So I have no idea what you mean about the "aha that is why he posted." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 07:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that he had confused Epf and Eff. But again, I don't know. --Elonka 07:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as "mentor" you are welcome to ask him. I do not see how he would confuse Epf and Eff, their user pages and thus logs of their edits are very different. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 07:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Just so you know, I replied to your comment that you left on Slrubenstein's talk page. I was unsure where to put it, but ended up deciding to keep the conversation together assuming at this point you're probably monitoring that talk page, since there have been several replies addressed to you on it.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have replied at your talkpage. --Elonka 04:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility
I know I have sometimes been uncivil on the R&I talk page, you are quite right to point it out. I promise to be more civil in the future, I agree that it leads to a more productive atmosphere on articles, though it is annoying when one makes an edit, that one has researched and cited, and then it gets removed from an article because it gives a different pov, neutrality is about giving all relevant povs, this annoyance can spill over into talk page posts. If you think I am being uncivil in the future please point it out to me and I'll try harder. I've also noticed that sometimes I make what I think are perfectly reasonable comments and someone gets offended, I don't know if this is due to cultural differences between British and American people, maybe we're more used to saying what we think in a more blunt way in Britain. On the other hand I honestly don't see the connection between this and Jagz's block, which was for a pattern of disruptive editing and pov-pushing and not for any specific edit or at all related to civility. Alun (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On Tundrabuggy
My comment on that is simply this: to note that ChrisO did not sanction anyone as an involved admin, he simply notified them of the case, and to point out that when protection is lifted it is not good practice for a single-purpose account to attempt, using weasel wording, to spark off exactly the same revert-war as before. That is not good-faith editing: even from a regular I would be very skeptical. From a SPA it's plain out of order.

Under those circumstances you cannot say MZM acted improperly. I would do exactly the same if this were the Balkans or Armenia-Azeri. I simply do not think we will make process on the Al-Durrah page with SPAs running around. Yes, there's a legitimate debate to have, no, tendentious SPAs who game the system will not help. We're better off without Tundra, trust me. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tundra was doing exactly what I had asked people to do. It was not appropriate for him to be rewarded with an immediate 90-day topic ban. --Elonka 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how making an obviously inflammatory edit is doing what you'd asked people to do. The revert-war was over "reportedly", he stuck in "reported". Classic weasellling. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I am regarding the situation with more AGF. --Elonka 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did want to make the point here that Elonka had asked us to 'go ahead and edit', not to make a particular edit. This point seems to be misunderstood. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hi. Per your comment at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes, I thought I'd let you know that I'm planning on merging the 2 remaining lists into the category (or into each other, if anyone values the list format, and speaks up about it) sometime in the next week. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Santos25Q not blocked?
Elonka, I'm having a hard time understanding why this user hasn't been indefinitely blocked. Looking at the list of both suspected and confirmed socks he had as Randy Jaiyan in addition to those under Santos25Q... this just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I believe in second and even third chances, but this is too much in my opinion. Ani Mate  19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And he's back to editing as an IP again. He reverted two redirects  with another IP originating from the Toronto area .  Ani  Mate  22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

the status quo
As it is Ramdrake and Co have removed a lot of relevant information from the Dysgenics article and included unsourced and badly sourced paragraphs. From the looks of it non of the regular editors, myself included, feel like dealing with them and haven't made any edits recently, though some polite attempts have been made on the talk page.

Next there is the issue with the perm ban of Rubidium37 by Dreadstar.

Bottom line is that I don't like to personally engage in Wikipedia's political arena, or deal with the cases where WP:OWN has evolved into WP:BANANA_REPUBLIC. --Zero g (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and add the Dysgenics article to my watchlist, but I'm not going to get involved in making decisions on content, so that's still up to you (and other editors), to make polite and source-based additions, as well as engaging in calm commentary on the talkpage. What I can do though is ensure that the discussion stays civil.  For best results, I recommend that you keep your own comments very very polite, and strictly focused on the article.  Resist the temptation to engage in finger-pointing at specific editors.  If anyone is truly disruptive, it'll show up pretty quickly, if all the other editors are able to keep control of their own tempers. --Elonka 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a try.


 * What is your opinion about Rubidium37's ban? He was banned for being a disruptive SPA sock puppet. Firstly: he was not disruptive, secondly: two days seems a bit short to determine SPA which is not a banneble offense anyways. Thirdly: no check user was performed. --Zero g (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know absolutely nothing about Rubidium37, but Dreadstar is a pretty level-headed admin. You might want to talk to him directly (and calmly) and ask him if he'll reconsider. --Elonka 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Check this first Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive418. And can I ask why Zero g is taking up something Jagz proposed back then and has already been to ANI? Dare we call this forum shopping? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that ANI post, and may I please remind Rlevse to assume good faith. I also strongly dislike the false accusation of forum shopping, especially given how easy it is for an admin to ban someone on a whim without being held accountable.


 * To answer your question, I'm not impressed with Dreadstar's actions and have no desire to interact with him. To answer Rlevse's one line judgement, how can you determine someone is a SPA account by 8 edits in 2 articles over a time span of 2 days? How can a user be disruptive if in fact it are other users who are disruptive when they revert properly sourced content that is relevant to the article without discussing it on the talk page first? The tone also seemed very inappropriate and particularly biased for an admin when Rlevse's indicated he hoped the "master" got banned as well in the process. Last time I checked it's completely acceptable to have two editing accounts. --Zero g (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Dysgenics
Please feel free to follow the conversation and see how the situation unfolds. Please also feel free to criticize constructively my behaviour if you feel I could do better. I know we got off on the wrong foot (more or less), but I'm hoping that if you follow one such talk page debate, you may have a better understanding of the true circumstances of such disputes as we had with Jagz. Call me a sucker for punishment if you will. Regards, :) --Ramdrake (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The cat
Pardon my ignorance, but when a user retires and someone uses the image of the Alice cat, why is it inherently insulting? I have never read Alice in wonderland and not seen the movie. Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is generally bad form to edit someone else's userpage, though some editors do this to each other in a friendly way. As for this particular image, the Cheshire Cat represents a fanciful creature that smiled broadly, and then gradually faded away to invisibility, with only the smile remaining. It also has somewhat of a reputation of being an "irritating" figure. See Cheshire Cat. --Elonka 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know other's user pages are not as public, unless vandalism is being reverted. I just thought there was something inherent (as in common knowledge in the English world) about the cat.  I guess nothing beyond the obvious is there.  Thanks!   Brusegadi (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad editing
I'm sorry, Elonka, but if you're facilitating utterly tendentious SPAs who are plainly editing in bad faith (I refer specifically to Julia1987) I don't feel that your mediation is getting anywhere useful with these people running amok. I will be returning to arbitration enforcement to request a topic ban on the SPAs. I'm disappointed that you haven't taken a firmer line with the SPAs, given their consistent disregard for NPOV and their endless soapboxing. When the Arbitration Committee has clearly stated that "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited", it's very unsatisfactory that users who are blatantly violating this injunction are being tolerated.

As for my edit, if you look carefully at it, I removed (1) an unsourced addition by Julia1987 ("The report authenticity was called into question and the whole affair is the subject to intensive judicial review in France.") and (2) an improperly sourced addition by Julia1987 ("However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. ") - I don't think we can reasonably use a copyright-violating non-English web video as a source. Please also bear in mind that WP:COPY requires copyright-violating links to be removed. The wording of both additions was awful and plainly POV-pushing, as usual with Julia1987. I accidentally removed a change and citation added by Canadian Monkey, so I restored that.

Your own editing rules state: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." The two contributions I removed were a very biased unsourced statement and a very biased statement sourced to a copyright violation. This is clearly well within the parameters of what you stated could be "deleted on the spot", so page-banning me for following your parameters seems distinctly unfair. Julia1987's additions are consistently atrocious - I think you would be better off topic-banning her, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Copy-right issue is a strew man nothing more. There is the original source on Ch10 web site. All that I brought (for your convenience) is a copy of the video that has the English translation. If you prefer to place a link to the original (Hebrew without translation) web site this is fine as well. In any case the issue was raised in the trial itself. ChrisO first accused "right wing bloggers" in propagating lies about al-dura the father. Now that these accusations are find to be true (based on a medical record and the testimony of the doctor who did the surgery Chris is trying to remove the evidence. Why does he do it on your talk page and not in the article talk page? Is this a violation of the ban placed on him? The ban was supposed to help ChrisO cool a bit from this article – maybe a longer ban is needed as he seem to pre occupied with this article.--Julia1987 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS there are other copy right issues: with images and diagrams in this article.--Julia1987 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, if you disagree with the restrictions, you are welcome to start a thread at WP:AE, though I think it would be better that you just took a week off from the article, and then we'd see how things go after that. If you do decide to start a thread, please provide me a link though so I can participate.  Thanks, Elonka 14:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind dealing with my points about Julia1987's additions being (a) unsourced, (b) highly POV, and (c) linking to a copyvio which policy says we must remove? Do you consider these to be within the scope of what you said could be "deleted on the spot", or not? If not, why not? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Julia1987 has been placed under restrictions, and is no longer allowed to edit the lead of the article. If there are further problems, the restrictions may be expanded. --Elonka 17:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I welcome that move but with respect, Elonka, that's not an answer to my question. Could you please state whether or not you consider the removal of material that was (a) unsourced, (b) highly POV, and (c) a copyright violation is within the parameters of what you allowed in your restrictions, and if not why not? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not going to get into a word by word debate of which of her edits were appropriate, and which weren't. The main point is that you did a full out revert, wiping out 100% of her changes, going back to your own last version, without any attempt to change the edit to something better. That was in direct opposition to the editing conditions that had been placed on the article, and which I had already warned you about. --Elonka 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't change them to "something better" because how do you do that for something for which the only source is a pirate web video? That should never have been added in the first place - I'm not going to add anything I can't verify. If I had simply deleted the copyvio source link and tidied up the words, I would have been left with an unsourced and possibly libelous statement. Remember WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." In any case, you've plainly acknowledged that Julia1987's edits were unacceptable by restricting her editing of the lead.
 * I don't really mind taking a break from the article for a few days but I think a month is very excessive given the circumstances. I would ask you to reconsider the length - I'd prefer to resolve this amicably. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit summaries are not helping your case. Neither is all this scrambling about trying to justify your actions. You obviously did a 100% revert, wiping out several intervening edits.  This was directly against the editing conditions, and also was despite the fact that I had specifically warned you to stop reverting.  I don't buy this "BLP" angle, because your edit summary was very clear as to the reason for your revert: "Blatant POV pushing". Considering your aggressive and wikilawyering demeanor here, I am not inclined to be lifting restrictions early. I strongly recommend that you rethink your approach. --Elonka 07:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, Elonka. I've explained why I made that edit in good faith, within the parameters that you set, applying fundamental Foundation-level policies. I'd remind you that any restrictions you set don't (and indeed can't) overrule basic policies set by the Foundation. I acknowledge that I didn't explain the edit properly at the time, which was clearly an error of judgment on my part, and it deserved a response from you. My point of disagreement is that I think your response was excessive given the mitigating circumstances. I've explained those circumstances here, again in good faith, in the belief that you would be willing to listen to my side of the story. That isn't wikilawyering.


 * I don't wish to personalise this, but with all due respect I believe you may not have made the right decision here. I think it would be beneficial to get some outside input and to that end, I will be raising the matter on Requests for arbitration. I'll post a courtesy link here when I get it sorted out later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to file an appeal, however I would point out that such a thread will probably take a week or longer to resolve anyway. Also, if you do go this route, be aware that you could make things worse on yourself.  If an appeal is filed, your entire range of behavior in the topic area will be brought up for review, including examples of incivility, forum-shopping, and multiple incidents of you issuing warnings to opponents, even though you were clearly not an "uninvolved administrator" in the situation.  It will also be pointed out that you asked for an uninvolved administrator to help out at the page, and then when I offered my services, you agreed to my participation, but then when I gave out cautions to multiple editors (including yourself), you seemed to feel that the cautions applied to other people,  but  not to you.  You ignored restrictions, and then when I gave you a specific warning, "one more revert and you go under sanctions", you still went ahead and did another revert. Also, if you start a public debate about this, be aware that other editors will be allowed to offer statements, and anyone who has had concerns about your behavior, will probably also be jumping in with statements about "involved" actions that you have taken.  Personally, I think when the entire situation is looked at in context, that you may end up with a complete topic ban (not just a page ban), as well as questions about whether or not you have been abusing your administrator access. So, before you start such a thread, I would recommend that you think hard about possible outcomes here.  My honest advice is to just sit out your page ban, and go work on something else for a few days.  Then when the page ban is up, you can come back to the talkpage.  If you can keep your comments positive, civil, and constructive, especially when dealing with editors who disagree with you, I will consider lifting the article-editing ban early. --Elonka 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you realise that an appeal wouldn't reflect well on you either, given that you page-banned me for removing this extremely obvious BLP and copyright violation - in full compliance with policy and your own editing restrictions. I note that you haven't raised the subject of the BLP and copyright violation with Julia1987, even though I pointed it out at the start of this discussion. At a time when Wikimedia is doing its best to crack down on BLP violations, I'm sure you'll appreciate that the sight of one admin page-banning another for actually enforcing BLP will look very strange. The bottom line is that you have mistakenly topic-banned me for performing what you assumed was a revert - admittedly my very uninformative edit summary didn't help - when it should have been obvious that what I removed should never have been added to the article in the first place. I might also add that as the comments on my talk page have shown, a number of editors are unhappy about your own handling of this mediation, so it would be quite likely that anyone who has had concerns about that would add their voices to the discussion. I'm quite prepared to stand by my edit. However, you would have to be prepared to explain why you have apparently ignored such a blatant BLP violation and penalised the person who did spot and act on it.
 * I really don't want to escalate this, as it would take up a lot of time that could be better used doing other things and as you say the outcome would not be predictable for either of us. I'd much prefer to reach a compromise that would resolve this satisfactorily for both of us. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've stayed away from the discussion on the main page (and actually Wikipedia in general) for various reasons over the past few days, one of the main ones being that it was a totally futile debate. You had one editor, with occasional help, trying to uphold basic Wikipedia rules, and a bunch of - to be quite frank - loony conspiracy theorists and POV pushers attempting to use a page about a dead child to promote a biased and politically motivated hasbara campaign. I am astonished that one of the few sane people participating in that debate has now been pushed off the page by your action. Chris has invested a lot of time carefully and calmly explaining rules and policies to these people. They have repeatedly ignored that advice, as well as ignored observations that a lot of what they are saying is factually wrong at quite a basic level, and yet he's the one forced off? As explained above, the edits were entirely reasonable. And isn't this a revert, which by your own rules means Julia should be banned too? --Nickhh (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the assessment that has been "calmly explaining" things, especially with edit summaries such as "Groundhog Day" and "Loony conspiracy theorising", and the way that he is referring to multiple editors such as  as a SPA, even when he's clearly not (check ChrisO's talkpage for that discussion).  As for Julia's removal of sourced information, I do agree that that was questionable, and if she continues with this kind of behavior, her restrictions will increase as well.  I'm not sure I would count that edit as a revert though.  Then again, I haven't compared it with other recent edits.  If you can show me a "before" and "after" that prove it was a revert, I'll take a look at it. --Elonka 14:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just wrong. He has been calmly explaining some of the issues, but has also on occasion been quite brutal (and in my view accurate) about describing some of the behaviour on that article and its associated talk page. One doesn't exclude the other. Directing the SPA comment at CM was an error, although it appeared to me to be a fairly casual reference which was made in the context of two other editors who are (or in one case were) total SPAs by any definition. Oh and here's the diff showing when the material Julia deleted went in. I assume that everyone here will be treated equally, and also that removing one editor from the page who seemed to care about basic policy won't lead to others running riot over it. --Nickhh (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diff. I have placed Julia1987 on a one-month ban from editing the lead section of the article. --Elonka 15:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by Jaakobou:
 * I agree with ChrisO that the phrasing on the material presented in the video by the doctor is biased and presented as an absolute truth. A more neutral phrasing would have been "Jamal presented scars stating that ... an Israeli doctor from XXX hospital presented X-rays stating these scars were originally...". Anyways, I think a number of people on this argument could use a break. Everyone seems to be lashing the word "conspiracy" at other editors, rather than present their own positions and arguments.
 * I'm not sure ChrisO's revert merits a full month ban. Perhaps, the sanction on him could be reduced somehow? maybe 0RR for 72hrs and 1RR for 2 weeks (just raising suggestions).
 * With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He (and everyone else on the page) was already on 0RR (see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah), and ChrisO violated it at least three times. After the second revert, I cautioned him and told him if he reverted again, he was going on restrictions.  Then he reverted again, and I put him on restrictions. See his talkpage for diffs. --Elonka 14:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy's topic ban
If you have agreed with MZMcBride to modify Tundrabuggy's article ban, then preferably before Tundrabuggy starts to edit the talk page, MZMcBride should make the necessary modification to this section of the case page. Thanks, PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I went ahead and updated the case page. --Elonka 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no
I think this comment is highly inappropriate. Telling him that some crowd of enemies is out to get him? Please. This can't possibly make things better. If you want to help this guy, help him by making him understand that his own behavior has been problematic. If you instead try to convince him that everyone-but-him is the problem, I can't see how his behavior would possibly improve. I had little confidence before that this mentoring would help. But if this is the kind of "mentoring" you're providing, forget not helping- it's actively harmful. Please stop. Friday (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Friday, please! Don't you have an aritlce you can edit than Wikistalk? Please, go edit and let this whole issue drop!!  D u s t i SPEAK!! 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was content to let it lie before the block was undone. This is quite dubious, and it's getting worse as it goes.  Friday (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that it's tough to AGF here, but what it boils down to, is whether or not Jagz really is a "problematic editor". There are definitely a few of his opponents saying that he is, but I have reviewed his contribs going back years, and I am not seeing this evidence of malice that they are claiming.  Instead, I saw Jagz, an editor with a history of good contributions, try to see if he could help out in an area of conflict (the Race and intelligence article).  He stepped into a minefield, and some of the editors there, already a bit over-defensive from dealing with other POV pushers, turned on Jagz with venom, and began engaging in incivility and name-calling, such as repeatedly accusing him of trolling.  The more that Jagz tried to defend himself and continue editing, the more vicious the attacks became, and the more dogged that he became.  To an outside observer who wasn't digging too deeply into the contribs, it may well have looked like he was a "problem editor", because it was often "Jagz against everyone else", and the "everyone else" were calling him all kinds of names.  Also, Jagz was definitely fixated on one topic, which again, to someone making a brief look at contribs, could look like a problem.  But remember, single article-editing isn't necessarily a problem, because some editors just work that way.  They'll get going on one article or set of articles, and they'll stay on them until they're "done", and then they'll move on to something else.  However, to others who weren't looking as deeply into his contribs, it definitely could look like SPA behavior.  But if you actually look at what he was saying and doing, he was making constructive edits, responding calmly on talkpages (sometimes with impressive calm, considering the attacks that were being generated against him), bringing up sources, and pointing out issues that he saw.  Now again, his behavior was not exemplary at all times, and he definitely made a few bad choices, including occasionally reacting with incivility, rejecting mediation, and leaving a snarky comment on the talkpage of one of his opponents.  There were also times that his opponents were asking him good faith questions, and rather than replying to them, he ignored them, when a civil reply might have de-escalated the situation. These were definitely bad calls on his part, but I see them as indications of "bad choices in a dispute", not as an indication of him "going bad" as an editor.  I think he has done many constructive things for Wikipedia, that he was doing constructive things even during the dispute, and once we're through this dispute, that he will continue to do many more good things in the future.  But in order for this to happen, we need to give him room to breathe, and his opponents need to stop scrutinizing every edit for evidence of bad faith.  If he's really as bad as his opponents say, then that will come out soon enough.  But he has to be given room to do this, and his opponents have to stop crying "Wolf!" every time he twitches an eyebrow. --Elonka 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I'm coming here as a spectator on this issue. It seems to me, speaking from experience, that you are perhaps overeager to identify with the lone editor rather than to look at what they are doing. Just a thought. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the dispute at Talk:Rab concentration camp, I'm afraid I cannot see you as a neutral spectator. But thank you for your comments. --Elonka 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring
Hello, I have just now caught up in the ANI thread and it doesn't matter to me. I can take Jazz on by myself and you tag along, or we can work as a team. You seem to be familiar with Jazz, so I am happy with the thought of teamwork. Just let me know.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the team idea, plus since you're not an admin (yet), it's probably best if I stay in the loop. BTW, do you ever use IMs? That's usually a quick way to reach me to discuss something in an off-wiki manner. --Elonka 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I use Facebook to do my IM'ing.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 16:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, I do also have email enabled....do you happen to have a facebook?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a topic for the noticeboard?
I was wondering if the issue regarding the mentioning of the alternative name in the Persian Gulf article, which appears to be a highly volatile issue both in the article discussion as well as in RL (indicated by the article, Persian Gulf naming dispute), would be a good entrant in the Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. Mediation has failed to resolve the issue, and the article has been dispute-locked since March. There appears to be no consensus in the article discussion for the inclusion of the alternative name of Arabian Gulf which is used by a significant portion of that region. There appears to be a significant amount of nationalism and cultural regionalism in play. Thoughts? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, naming issues are exactly appropriate for that board. --Elonka 16:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Six months
Hi Elonka, I just wanted to drop by and mention that it's been just over six months since myself, TimVickers, and Alison nominated you for adminship. I think you've been great, and I hope you've had fun. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wow, time flies.  I'd like to think that I've been doing well with the bit, though doubtless some would disagree.  ;)  I do appreciate your followup though.  You do a great job of keeping an eye out for good talent, and then nurturing them towards adminship.  Every so often I spot someone and think, "Hmm, with another couple thousand edits, this person would be a great admin."  Then I check their talkpage, and heh, you're usually already there, encouraging and mentoring.  So keep up the great work!  :) --Elonka 19:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliments. :) Same here as well: I too was surprised that it's been six months already. Thanks for giving us the chance to nominate you. Kind regards. Acalamari 22:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Page moves and page length
Point taken on both counts. I know nothing about archiving, could you set a bot for threads older than 90 days?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance?
Elonka, I'd appreciate your intervention in a situation with List of One Life to Live cast members. An IP editor continues to remove all red links, etc. from this list, and obviously red links are perfectly acceptable per the MOS for articles which may reasonably be created (in this case, basically adult actors and fictional characters). This has gone on for some time, and myself and other editors have restored the links each time. I have explained my position on this in various edit summaries and on the IP's talk page, with no response or even explanation from him/her as to why they disagree. This editor and I have just reverted back and forth twice or so, so I was hoping for your opinion before this appears as a revert war. Thanks in advance. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of page ban
Elonka, I'm truly sorry to have to take this step but your refusal to reconsider your page ban and your lack of any response to my last message on your talk page, 24 hours ago, has left me with no choice. I've appealed the ban at Requests for arbitration.

Your decision to apply a page ban was understandable but very mistaken. I fully accept that I've made mistakes of my own on the article and talk page and I take responsibility for those mistakes, but this was not one of them. You have refused to consider whether my removal of Julia1987's edit was legitimate, you've brushed off the BLP and copyright violation issues and you've not raised those issues at any point with any editor involved with this article, as far as I know. At a time when we're regularly being criticised for BLP violations, page-banning a fellow admin for tackling one such very obvious violation sends some very wrong messages. That, more than anything else, is what has prompted me to lodge the appeal.

Please accept my assurances that this is not in any way personal. I have made every effort to avoid criticising you directly in the appeal and I continue to believe that you have been acting in good faith throughout this unfortunate matter. I hope we can resolve this as quickly as possible.

On a related point, I'm glad to see that you have posted a very clear explanation of undue weight on the article talk page - it is something that I had highlighted repeatedly. I hope you could do the same regarding BLP requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, why not just reduce ChrisO's 30-day page ban to be the same length as the seven days you banned him from the talk page, and then, once that has expired, you can both get on with the good work you are doing and leave ArbCom to do the work they need to do? Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, I'd be grateful if you could change some of the language in your statement. I've tried very hard not to personalise it in my own statement. Unfortunately some of your language is rather personal - "stir things up here", "he felt that the restrictions were for other people, and not for him" (not true at all, by the way), "wikilawyering" and so on. I would be grateful if you could address this. I don't want the discussion to become an exchange of insults. Also, I'm not sure what the point is of posting a link to the appeal from the article talk page. This is really quite a narrow question of whether your editing restrictions supersede standing policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Briefly, in support of ChrisO here, I was surprised that you (Elonka) said "I wish that ChrisO could recognize that my system works." He clearly stated at the end of his post: "Please note that I fully support Elonka's mediation efforts; this unfortunate misunderstanding should not be taken as criticism of the rest of her work on the article.". There are various debates that can be had around this, but I'm going to ask again, can't you and ChrisO come to some sort of agreement? Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, I wouldn't object to the page-ban-reduction compromise that you suggested above, but there will also need to be some sort of agreement on how BLP-violating edits are to be tackled in future. I'm open to any suggestions that Elonka would care to make on that score. Elonka, if you see this as being a viable way forward, I would be happy to withdraw the appeal. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

After Tundrabuggy was similarly page banned from this article, for 90 days, the banning admin, User:MZMcBride, steadfastly refused to shorten the ban duration, despite multiple appeals by User:Elonka, User:SlimVirgin and others, reasoning that it a minor inconvenience - being banned from 1 page out of the more than 2.4 million articles on Wikipedia. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. ChrisO - this is a minor inconvenience, go find something else to do for the next 25 days. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, can you explain why you feel that reducing ChrisO's ban would be a good thing? I did not impose it as punishment, but instead to maintain stability at the article.  Before the ban, ChrisO had been uncivil, he was referring to his opponents as "SPAs" and "conspiracy theorists" (even when they were longstanding editors), he was repeatedly reverting the article despite multiple requests to stop, and then once the ban was in place, he further escalated the situation in increasingly strong-worded attempts to intimidate.  Further, when I offered to reduce his ban if he would simply take a break for a few days and then come back and participate in a civil and constructive manner, he continued to escalate things. He has accused the uninvolved admin (me) of "violating Foundation policies" and "banning him for upholding BLP" and other things which are, simply, absurd, up to and including the current ArbCom appeal.  ChrisO's actions in the context of the article had become disruptive, and now outside of the article he is disruptive too.  Neither behavior is encouraging.  Further, this is not a one-time incident, but is evidently part of a longterm pattern of edit-warring, misuse of administrator access, forum-shopping, and attempting to intimidate his opponents. Take a look at Canadian Monkey's statement, which shows that ChrisO does not hesitate to forum shop in every available venue, in an attempt to get his way.  And all of this disruption and wikilawyering on ChrisO's part, is because he was told to take a break from editing one (1) article for a little while. So why exactly should I reduce his ban? We have plenty of other constructive editors on that article, who are working peacefully and in accordance with the editing conditions. So why exactly is ChrisO's presence so desperately and immediately needed on that one (1) article, that it warrants all this fuss? --Elonka 03:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be a good thing because the ban was a mistake on your part. I've explained very clearly why I made that disputed edit. I don't habitually edit Middle Eastern articles, as it's not a topic area I'm particularly interested in - my involvement in this article has been BLP-related from the start. My very first edit on it, way back in April 2007, concerned BLP. I advised Julia1987 not to post unsourced/badly sourced allegations against living people but she ignored that and went ahead anyway . I'm perplexed that after all this discussion you still haven't acknowledged that there was anything wrong with what she added. That is the #1 reason why I've gone to RFAr on this issue: letting the page ban expire of its own accord does nothing to address any future BLP issues or your baffling reluctance to acknowledge them. Your insistence on "no reverts" and "change rather than revert" overlooks the fact that it's sometimes necessary to remove content that should never have been added in the first place. So I would be grateful if you could drop this "after the fact" line because it's simply not true - Julia1987 ignored my very clear advice on BLP, as the record shows. As an admin and mediator, you should be encouraging compliance with BLP, not punishing it. This is not simply "a minor inconvenience" to me (though that is certainly true) - it tells all the other editors on that article that BLP and sourcing don't matter and they will be punished by you if they try to tackle problem edits in accordance with standing policy. That is a terrible message to send and it seriously undermines your own mediation efforts. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Let's resolve this amicably, Elonka. Carcaroth has suggested the outlines of an agreement. I'll put my cards on the table and explain what I'd like to see happening to end this.


 * My presence on the article is a secondary concern. Clearly it doesn't need me to be there. A reduction as proposed by Carcaroth wouldn't go amiss as a sign of good faith, however.


 * My main concern is the unresolved BLP/copyright issue. I would like you to acknowledge that there was a legitimate BLP and copyright concern with this edit that I removed.


 * BLP is always going to be a fundamental concern in an article that discusses allegations against living people. I thought your explanation of undue weight requirements was excellent. Could you post a similar explanation of BLP requirements?


 * It is possible (I would say likely) that there will be more BLP issues on this article in the future. Right now I have no confidence that if someone reposted Julia1987's addition to the article you would do anything about it. Your page ban will deter anyone else from tackling such problems. There needs to be a clear understanding of how BLP violations will be tackled in future, and this situation has arisen because there was no such understanding in the first place. I'd like to suggest the following arrangement:


 * If material is posted that editors believe to be a clear BLP violation, it may be removed provided that the removal is clearly explained in the edit summary and a note is left on your talk page so that you can review the removal. If there is any doubt about whether the addition is a BLP violation, it should first be discussed on the article talk page, and outside views from the BLP noticeboard may be sought if necessary.


 * I acknowledge that I overstepped the line of your restrictions on a few occasions previously, though obviously I believe that the edit for which you page-banned me was legitimate. I promise to fully abide by your restrictions in future, subject to any superseding policy requirements.

Does this sound like a reasonable compromise? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. ChrisO, look at your most recent revert. You were not just "removing a BLP violation", you were reverting to your own last version.  There are multiple changes in that edit that have nothing to do with BLP, and for you to continue to insist that the entire revert was justified by BLP, continues to make me question your judgment. --Elonka 12:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you had looked one edit further, you would have seen that I immediately restored an intermediate edit by Canadian Monkey that I had accidentally deleted - see . The before-and-after diff, combining my initial edit and my immediate correction, is therefore this: . My only changes were (a) the removal of Julia1987's BLP-violating addition and (b) the restoration of the line that she deleted - for which you sanctioned her - and the text I restored was Canadian Monkey's intermediate version, not my earlier one. I've pointed this out before.
 * I'm obviously sorry that you've rejected my proposal. As I said before, I'd like to reach a reasonable compromise that satisfies your concerns about editing restrictions and my concerns about future BLP compliance. Do you have any proposals along those lines? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sequence of edits
You restored Canadian Monkey's edits, and completely wiped out all of Julia1987's edits. She did her edit in several successive passes. Can you please point to which one that you feel was such a blatant BLP violation, that it warranted deleting it, and everything else that she did? Or are you trying to argue that every single one of her edits was a BLP violation? --Elonka 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's go through the sequence to get it on the record:
 * 1. Here she deletes a line which I had added some time earlier. She then deletes another line I added earlier.  (You sanctioned her for these edits, I believe.)
 * 2. Here she introduced the BLP/copyright violation - to quote FloNight, "a serious breach of policy, such as a copyright violation, vandalism, or the introduction of highly concerning content about a living person."
 * 3. Here she makes minor changes to her BLP/copyright violation:,.
 * 4. Here she changes some wording in the 3rd para, removing "Several years after the shooting".
 * 5. Here Canadian Monkey changes some more wording in the 3rd para and introduces a new source, and here  he fixes a typo.
 * 6. I intervened here and (yes) took the article back to my earlier text.
 * 7. I realised that I had removed more than I had intended and here, 35 minutes later, I restored Julia's and Canadian Monkey's edits to the 3rd para with two words changed ("original reporting" rather than "veracity".)
 * So in total, I restored the sourced text that Julia1987 had deleted, for which you sanctioned her, I removed the BLP violation, and I retained her and CM's edits to the 3rd para after reversing my accidental removal of them. The resulting version was therefore not my original text, I did not wipe out all of Julia1987's edits, and I did not wipe out any of CM's additions - the only thing I removed was the BLP/copyright violation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What text, exactly, do you feel was a BLP violation? --Elonka 19:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not just BLP, copyright and NPOV too. Julia1987's problem paragraph consisted of two sentences. The first read "Muhammad's father claim he was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds." (She added the words "claim he" to a line I originally wrote.) That's factually incorrect, since his treatment and injuries were the subject of eyewitness reporting at the time by multiple sources. It misrepresents the cited source and the wording is clearly intended to express scepticism. This violates BLP's requirement to maintain "a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Note that I restored the original text of that line in this edit (it's the first bit of red text)..


 * The more serious violation was in the second sentence: "However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes." That states a contentious claim as fact - an unarguable NPOV violation. The claim itself is sourced to this file on a video sharing website. Please review it; you'll see that it's unsourced, undated, uploaded by an unknown individual and has clearly been edited (note the subtitled translation), probably by the uploader. There is no indication that the video is there with the permission of the owner. WP:COPY prohibits us from linking to pages that illegally distribute someone else's work. I've removed many YouTube, Google Video etc. links before for just this reason. Going back to BLP, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used", and an undated, unverified, edited pirate web video is just about the most questionable source you could find.


 * That second sentence was completely unsalvageable - we can't link to that source and without that source I couldn't provide any source for the claim. BLP requires us to "remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or] relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Verifiability." It couldn't be changed because there wouldn't have been any reliable source for the changed version. The only remaining choice was to remove it. I gather SlimVirgin has found an apparently legitimate copy of the same video, but please bear in mind that at the time I was editing, I had no usable sources whatsoever to which that claim could be attributed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am still not seeing a blatant BLP violation that justified a total revert. Julia added information about the scars, and sourced them to a news report.  I have reviewed the report, it is credible, and Julia's text seems to be a reasonable reflection of what is in the report. You should not have reverted.  You could have perhaps placed a verify credibility tag on the source, or you could have modified Julia's text to something that you felt was more neutral. As for the copyright issue, as I understand it, you are saying, "Julia sourced a claim to a report, I felt the link to the report was a copyright violation, so I removed the link, then since the link was gone, her claim didn't have a source anymore, so I removed that too."  Sorry, that's still not a BLP violation, and neither does it justify the complete removal of all of her changes. Removing an online link to a news report, does not invalidate the fact that the report may still be a valid source. Sources do not have to be online. --Elonka 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, once again, it was not a total revert. I honestly do not know how you can make that claim considering that I've just walked you through the sequence of edits, showing you in black and white that I did not remove Julia's non-problematic additions. In total, I removed one line and two other words that Julia had added. Second, I didn't "remove an online link to a news report", I removed a link to an overt copyvio, as policy requires - I note you haven't disputed that it was a copyvio. The copyvio may have been a news report but the type of content is irrelevant to the fact that that it was a copyvio in the first place. Third, you are quite wrong that an unsourced claim is not a BLP violation. WP:BLP says, black and white again, that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Adding a verify credibility tag to an unsourced, highly contentious and potentially libelous claim is absolutely inappropriate and is quite simply not allowed under BLP. If the claim is unsourced, it can't be included, period. That's always been the policy. Otherwise editors could add any unsourced claims they liked as long as they added the verify credibility afterwards. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where exactly is this, "unsourced, highly contentious and potentially libelous" claim? --Elonka 20:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Note regarding soapboxing
I've seen you gotten some good commentary regaring your handling of the al-durrah page and I tend to agree even if a few of the bans on the page have been too strong to my liking. However, the soapboxing issue is just un-nerving. Just as comparisons to famous fringe theories are being made on a constant basis, reminders of bogus blood libels agains Jews could be made. IMHO this issue should be reigned in before the sarcasm and insults get out of hand.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific? Do you think that some of the comments on the talkpage need to be refactored? --Elonka 14:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not naming names or pointing fingers, but I believe that comparisons of Karcenty/Shahaf/Shapira versions (reported on by multiple reliable sources) with the Flat Earth/Fake Moon Landing/9-11 an inside job/etc. fringe conspiracy theories need to stop. If editors are unable to present their arguments with respect to their fellow editors, utilizing reliable sources and instead preffer to make improper advocacy and soapbox to how crazy people who suggest writing this version down must be, then let them take a time out. On a similar tone of comments, I'd expect editors who would compare Talal Abu Rahmeh (or the people supporting his report) to the KGB operative who wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be given time out as well.
 * You can also go over my comments on the al-Durrah talk page for examples. I hope this clarifies the issue.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC) lil more 16:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)