User talk:Elonka/ACE2011

Questions from AGK

If candidates are not permitted to challenge the contents of your guide, please feel at liberty to remove the following remark. Am I correct in guessing that there is precisely diddly-squat I can do to change your view, or is User:AGK/Drafts to your satisfaction? Have you reviewed any of my work outside of that single list of my mainspace contributions (which I self-professedly do not make my priority, preferring to focus on background processes)? Why have you linked to my answers to the 2009 election, but not to the answers of Coren, Hersfold, and Kirill (who have all stood in the past)? AGK [•] 20:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Candidates are welcome to challenge and question.
2. (noting that this is a continuation of a conversation from the talkpage at Ealdgyth's guide). To be honest, I wasn't impressed with how you handled User:AGK/Drafts. It also doesn't say much about your ability to handle the workload of an arbitrator, nor are you doing a good job of showing how an arbitrator should react to criticism. I was also unimpressed that you brought up WP:FLOG.[1] A better reaction from you would have been to thank me for bringing the matter to your attention, apologize for not dealing with it when it was brought up two years ago, promise to get the page cleaned up, and then, you know, clean it up.
3. Yes.
4. Because I haven't gotten around to it yet.

--Elonka 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Resignations

I noticed Hersfold's resignation noted here. For completeness, it should be pointed out that both Kirill and Coren resigned during their earlier terms. I'm guessing you can find the details yourself, but let me know if you needs dates and/or diffs. I'm not sure if the matter of the earlier resignations was directly addressed in the questions during the elections where Kirill and Coren were re-elected (December 2009), but from memory it wasn't. Kirill resigned during 2009 (as the chart shows) and stayed resigned (for several months) and was then re-elected at the following elections. Coren's resignation was more brief (days or weeks) and he returned, something I've always thought should have been addressed at the time of his re-election but from memory wasn't. I think all three candidates that have resigned in the past should be asked a question related to that (regardless of whether they've addressed it in their candidate statements), as unexpected resignations (for the wrong reasons) can be detrimental to the smooth operation of a committee (though equally, resigning for the right reasons is good). Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, and I did bring up Kirill's resignation in a previous guide, as I recall. I do like the idea of questioning candidates about their resignations, but if they've managed to serve a full term since then, I (personally) don't see it as a serious issue. I like the way you're thinking though! Are you going to make your own guide? I would be very interested in your thoughts on the candidates. --Elonka 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I will be doing my own guide (but not until the weekend, when hopefully more candidates will have emerged). I'll also be asking each candidate a specific question, but again want to wait until enough have stepped forward to make this a credible election. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages & KW.

Hi Elonka. I just thought I'd drop you a note to explain my abnormally high time at talk pages - this is due to the mentoring work that I do - which almost all takes place in userspace and user talk space. You may find it enlightening to have a look through my adoption school - or even to get an idea of how much work I've done there by looking at the number of sub pages in that school. Mentoring is something I feel we do poorly on Wikipedia in general and I work hard to sort that.

As for Kiefer.Wolfowitz - I became involved when found what I believed to be a pattern of disruptive edits. I tried to improve the situation and I stopped when I realised there was nothing more that I could productively achieve. I'd be happy to give an overview of the situation from my point of view, if you are interested - but importantly I do not feel I am in dispute with him, though I know that whenever we end up in a similar meta area it is rarely constructive. I do my best to keep out of his way, have removed his talkpage from my watchlist and so on. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi WTT, thanks for responding, and certainly, I'd be happy to review your side of things. I'll freely admit that I am not familiar with the details of the situation yet, and have not formed a strong opinion one way or the other. I was just noting that there was a lot of activity between the two of you, which, as you are an ArbCom candidate, would merit further investigation. As for "keeping out of KW's way", I see what appears to be an active discussion at Talk:BLT though? Again, I have no opinion on the content of the dispute, I'm just noticing the ongoing pattern of activity. --Elonka 13:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've nabbed much of the early timeline from a request for feedback I made on Geometry guy's talk page.

• Prior to the ANI, my interactions with KW were limited to 3 occasions, once when one of my mentees bit a new user working on an article KW was interested in. There was a misunderstanding as to what went wrong there and the discussion was escalating, but I managed to de-escalate the issue. KW was reasonable once he understood what was going on and the outcome was amicable. The next time was at my RfA, where he ended up strongly supporting me. Finally, there was an incident where KW was edit warring (4 or 5 reverts) over an asperger's userbox on a minor's page, where I admonished KW rather than blocking him.
• When this ANI was raised regarding personal attacks, I did some investigation into KW's contribution history and saw enough problematic edits that I thought an RfC would be a better venue. I stated as much and he told me that he didn't care about my opinion. I tried to explain further, with each comment being dealt with rudely and my motives questioned. I understood KW was under a lot of stress at the time and I repeatedly asked for the thread to be closed. Eventually I started a new section, which stated that I would be writing the RfC - in the hopes that the issues I'd found could be dealt with and the stressful ANI could be closed. It was, soon after.
• Within an hour of the ANI close, Kiefer wrote to me on my talk page saying that I was threatening him with an RfC (he also raised the same at AN). At that point I felt an RfC was appropriate, but I wanted it to be productive - not a waste of time. Kiefer had a number of requests that he wanted me to meet before he would participate in the RfC, I didn't think any were unreasonable - and were worth the hassle to get Kiefer to participate. I even suggested an informal discussion - which he refused unless it was by email. As I wanted transparency, I refused that request. I did however set up a private workshop, in the hopes that the informal discussion might happen between KW and myself. I emailed him about it, telling no one else. One significant mistake I made there is laying it out in the form of an RfC, which I thought was convenient - but instead aggrevated KW. He wrote a long diatribe in response, asking for sanctions within it and notified a number of other members of the community.
• It was clear that an informal discussion would not work and I wrote Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz locally in my userspace. When I was finished, I left it quietly alone for a month since KW requested a "break" and I did my best to avoid KW during that period. I did watch KW's contributions, to see if he had changed, and after a few more pebbles down the mountain, I requested Demiurge1000 to add his point of view so that the RfC would meet certification.
• The RfC was an interesting experience. KW was clearly aware that there there were issues with his editing, and even accepted that he needed to improve in places - However, there were issues of canvassing, avoidance techniques, wikilawyering and KW temporarily retired over a tangential issue. Eventually, I realised that no more progress would be made and I moved for early closure. It took a while, but eventually TParis shut the RfC. Since then, I left a note ok KW's talk page suggesting that we move on, answered any further queries, then removed him from my watchlist and went about my business. I've seen him every so often since since he works in some similar meta areas to me (RfA, for example), but I generally just don't get involved in areas he's commenting.
• Finally regarding BLT, I believe that's part of his ArbCom guide - he investigated articles I've written. BLT is far from his usual stomping grounds (maths, economics and certain political biographies), the only reason he was there was me. He took exception to a sentence, implying that I had taken a source out of context. After WP:BRD, I found half a dozen sources to back it up, and rewrote the sentence. KW decided he could do better, I was happy with his version and that went in the article. Jayron32 even gave us a barnstar over the compromise, even though it seemed like pretty normal WP process to me.

This is of course, just how I see the situation. I'd be happy to discuss any of my actions or anything else further. If you can't find a link for anything I've said, I've got a good memory and know where to dig, so just give me a heads up and I'll find you any more information you need. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply, I will take a look and let you know if I have any questions. To start, could you give some timeline context? Also, what were the early issues with your mentees? --Elonka 16:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly.

• April 2011 - my earliest encounter with KW (My mentee's archive),
• June 2011 - my RfA and the 3RR warning
• 4 - 8 August - ANI thread raised by another editor in which I suggested RfC.
• 8 - 9 August - KW puts down requests regarding RfC.
• 11 August - wrote informal workshop for discussion
• 21-23 August - informed KW by email, KW writes response requesting sanctions.
• 31 August - 5 September - Wrote RfC in userspace, then left alone.
• 2 October - requested Demiurge to look at RfC, and fill in as second certifier.
• 8 October - put RfC live
• 22 October - requested closure of RfC
• 30 October - RfC closed, de-watchlisted KW, generally ignored him
• 27-28 November - KW removes a sentence from BLT, discussed, replaced with updated version with more sources.

Does that cover everything? Two large areas of discussion, August and October this year, not particularly long running. You ask what early problems did I have with my mentees, are you asking a general question about mentorship or regarding the incident where one of my mentees got entangles with KW? Worm^TT · (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@WTT/David,

You know that you should alert an editor who is the subject of discussion. Why did you fail to do so, here?

@Fellow Wikipedians, especially Elonka,

Let me address WTT/David's response, which begins with "I became involved when found what I believed to be a pattern of disruptive edits. I tried to improve the situation and I stopped when I realised there was nothing more that I could productively achieve."

Too bad that he is still running for ArbCom after realizing that there is nothing more that he can productively achieve!

1. WTT's discussion of BLT is misleading. He pushed an absurd claim that BLTs caused an increase in pork prices on the main page; after I removed his error, he reinserted his mistake in the "GA" article, again making an erroneous claim about pork prices. The article history and the talk page show his denial.

BLTs apparently are associated with a seasonal increase in pork-bellies (in the U.S.), after the harvest of tomatoes makes tomatoes cheaper and tastier and hence BLTs lower cost. (This is quite different than what he pushed onto the Main Page.)

About my motives for correcting your error, David/WTT, please review WP:AGF.

2. WTT found my RfC "interesting", and raised a lot of issues about my alleged "canvassing", etc. The intelligent reader should compare WTT's canvassing-charge here with its month-old rebuttal by Geometry guy, who explained that my notices about the RfC were neutrally worded and placed in neutral places, as recommended by WP:policy.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In his narrative, WTT omits his most recent antagonism, which involved a violation of WP:Involved and honesty. I quote from my election guide:

Finally, despite WTT's involvement, and mocking me with "a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing", WTT used a misleading edit-summary "This should be closed" when he not only closed but also misused the hidden-archive template, to which he attached the cover-up label "User blocked for a week, tangential discussion closed - nothing left to see here; this action violated the prohibition against involved administrators applying the administrators-only hidden archival template.

Note the time stamp of the conclusion of my remarks: 12:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User blocked for a week, tangential discussion closed - nothing left to see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – User blocked for a week I'll try and keep this brief. The other day, I noted a nomination by Lihaas (talk · contribs) at WP:ITNC was posted on the wrong date [2]. So to get back at me, he undid one of my revisions on the page marking a seperate nomination as ready [3] (it was eventually posted by an admin). Later on, another editor moved the nomination to the right day [4] but Lihaas later red-added it [5] and decided to take a shot at me unnecessarily [6]. So I warned him not to do it and explained that he was wrong in assuming I moved it [7]. In response, he made this somewhat threatening response [8] and now he's comparing me to deposed dictators [9]. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) hot stop whos vengeance mongering started eons ago takes it upon himself to REFACTOR other comments without any authority whatsoever. Thats not his prerorgative. And the issue is the same of the Nigeria attakcs (something he did before before because he did not like yet he has whis cake and eat it too with the current ITN on JOe Frazier) Umm he did remove it! not MOVE IT! Anyways hes quite pov in assuming notoriety...Lihaas (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) This isn't Lihaas' first time at ANI. Sigh. I've issued a final warning. m.o.p 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC) and youre authourity like his? Furthermore the subject title here is CLEARLY an NPA to make prejudgements where he has no authority at allLihaas (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I should clarify that I've changed the section title here; Lihass is objecting to a previous section title, not "Lihass". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I wish you'd both dial it back a few notches. I realize this kind of spiraled out of control, and I hesitate to criticize only the person who went the furthest over the line, but Lihass, this is too far over the line. If this conflict is a single instance, can't you disengage and go back to your corners? And if this is a long-simmering dispute between the two of you, then I guess you should say so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Off the top of my head, I've also noted other instances when items he posted are "stale" (too old be posted), but it's never devolved to this point. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC) If there's a relatively harmless pattern of posting stale items, then I'd ignore it. If there's a pattern of posting stale items that you think is disruptive (being careful not to let your current antagonism cloud your judgement), then that sounds like a job for WT:ITN. I meant, a history of you two arguing unproductively with each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) this is not something beyond AN incident...not a recalling of all thing that pissed people off. His "current antagonism DOES cloud [his] judgement." I dont cry to ANI or elsewhere when things dont go my way...thas whymy complaints dont appear here! Lets note he inclides a history f bitchinginstead of productive additionsLihaas (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) but fine i agree to tone it down if its MUTUAL...his accusation above that i maliciously posted stale posts is also "over th line" and Not AGF...i cant keep sitting back and takiong nsanctioned NPAs just ebcause i dont complain!Lihaas (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Calling another editor's actions 'bitching' and 'crying' is past the final straw. I've blocked Lihaas for one week. m.o.p 00:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC) But Lihaas can get smeared as a "national socialist" for a week and you administrators just sit on your hands and do nothing .... What a political crib you crawl in if "bitching and moaning" is worse than Nazism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC) The user has a userbox proclaiming himself to be a national socialist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Lihaas has hundreds of contradictory user boxes, as you know, BB, yet you shamelessly repeat the ns smear and neglect his boxes identifying himself as a classical liberal, as a supporter of Pahlin, as an opponent of Pahlin, etc. Your user name Baseball Buggs contains "ass" but it would be unfair to say that you identify yourself as an ass.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) OK, so you're saying he's not necessarily any of those things, he's just being funny. 10-4. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC) And in this ANI, you were told by around 10 users (admins and editors alike) that pointing out that a user has a userbox (self-created I might add) is not a smear. It's time to drop that stick. WormTT · (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Lihaas has been blocked for the straw "bitching and moaning", yet the smear "national socialist" went without chastisement of the administrator and familiar. This is a double standard. Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I have warned Kiefer.Wolfowitz on his talk page that any further discussion by him of the whole "Lihaas was smeared" topic will get him blocked for disruption. This has gone on for far too long. Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I certainly can discuss the smearing at appropriate venues, such as ArbComm Elections, RfAs, RfCs, etc. Please redact your "any" and replace with "inappropriate".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Oh yes, wikilawyering, that will improve things. Just drop it. Fram (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC) It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Can I please ask everybody else to not respond to these comments either. Any response will only invite further comments, and if he then gets blocked, he may claim that it was one-sided, and that he isn't even allowed to respond to comments and so on. Fram (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz now blocked for 24 hours for continued discussion of the "national-socialist" issue after ample warning. Fram (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I recap the following issues that Worm That Turned ignored in his account of his "interesting" experience as the junior G-man conducting the RfC:

• He was summoned by his friend Demiurge1000 to ANI, after which he ignored all the personal attacks and incivility by Demiurge1000. Please examine the RfC and Demiurge1000's role throughout, and Worm's lack of independent judgment whenever Demiurge1000 appeared.
• His account above is the first time he acknowledged mistakes in the RfC-formatted "discussion"---3 months too late. Please examine the charges he filed against me, and observe that they were as inaccurate and badly written as his bacon articles.
• Then he prepared a grossly partisan RfC, over 2-3 months: This RfC began with a passive-aggressive section of misleading quotes from sometime critics of me, who turned out in 2-3 cases to be friends. In these and other cases, WTT pulled diffs out of context, correctly assuming that most RfC participants would not read their context. (I can understand an RfC-filer being tempted to prepare a partisan RfC with half-truths and misleading quotations---but how can a grown man behave that way over months?)
  • In particular, WTT accused me of politically motivated editing, specifically of removing a scandal from Penn Kemble, even after I had re-inserted it!

A grown man who cannot apologize for such partisanship and half-truths (and poor writing) has no business on ArbCom.

Note the indentation and time-stamp of the previous remarks. 12:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident this page is about to get quite a few edits from KW, you'll excuse me if I keep out of it. Should any questions come up from either of you, I will answer them, but I think that any other comments that I make will only aggravate matters. KW, as to your question - I know of no requirement to alert an editor who is subject of a discussion, except on noticeboards. I offered Elonka my personal point of view on how things unfolded, which she could tally up with yours, which you had provided for her. I saw no benefit in approaching you on this matter, as I have not approached you on anything since the end of the RfC, only responding in areas I already watch/edit. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WTT wrote another half-truth, "I know of no requirement to alert an editor who is subject of a discussion, except on noticeboards," unless he is also ignorant of talk-page guidelines that strongly suggest alerting editors being discussed?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

KW, patience, please? --Elonka 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elonka,

Do you remember what Clint Eastwood's character in Absolute Power replied when, standing by his daughter's hospital bed, he was asked for mercy? ;)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(sigh). --Elonka 18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

KW, thank you and I appreciate that you are trying to be thorough, but things are getting a bit difficult to read. If you would like to add further diffs, that's fine, but for anything else substantive, perhaps it would be best to simply expand the section on your own guide? As I'm sure you know, I'm definitely reading that as well. Thanks, --Elonka 18:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WTT, based on the comments and evidence in the RfC, if this became an arbitration case (and setting aside whether or not you should recuse), what type of proposed decision would you recommend? --Elonka 23:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly clear to me that if this were to go to ArbCom, KW would be blocked for a signficant period (maybe 1 year, maybe indefinitely). Assuming his behaviour is problematic, and I believe it is, there are a number of factors which mean that there is no other obvious solution. There is no area which he could be topic banned from which would improve the situation, there is no evidence he shows any acknowledgement of the issues, civility restrictions just don't work - we should all be held to the same standard of civility. Now, I believe that KW is actually a worthwhile contributor (whether he is still a "net positive" I am no longer certain), which is why I have never pushed for a block and why I did not take the matter to arbitration. (Of course I would recuse on such matters, it'd hardly be a fair case if I didn't!) Worm^TT · (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not agreeing with your analysis. I doubt that an editor such as KW (who has many exemplary content contributions) would be immediately blocked by ArbCom on a first case. Instead, they would be more likely to praise his work, but issue a caution about his ability to interact civilly with other editors. And they would probably authorize admin-issued discretionary sanctions. The hope would be that KW would then understand that there were legitimate concerns by neutral editors about his ability to interact with others on this cooperative project that is Wikipedia, and that he would then seek to voluntarily moderate his own behavior such that no further action would be necessary. If he was unable to modify his own behavior, then admins would be empowered to issue short blocks to enforce the ArbCom sanctions, escalating in duration to a year-long block only if KW was completely out of control and having repeated lapses. Or do you see another reason why you feel that his behavior is so egregious, that an immediate indefinite block would be appropriate? --Elonka 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Elonka,

?

Worm/David has written at length at the RfC-style mediation and at the recent RfC. He must regard the RfC as sufficient evidence of incorrigibility, I would guess.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks KW, and I do apologize that WTT and I are kind of talking about you in the third person like this. My main goal here has been to investigate WTT's judgment and thought processes, not yours. Please do not take my comments as any kind of condemnation... I'm just trying to carefully judge WTT's fitness for the position of arbitrator. --Elonka 17:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain how after an ANI, an informal mediation with an editor who at the time was uninvolved and an RfC/U (which involved a sitting arb), that ArbCom would believe that KW "understand that there were legitimate concerns by neutral editors" just because ArbCom says there are. I also can't see what discretionary sanctions would help matters. On top of this, there is another factor which I believe I'm taking into account which you may not be and that is how KW responds to stressful situations. I feel that if there was an arbitration case, I do not believe he would take it well and his responses would likely result in the block (or him leaving the project voluntarily). What's more, if ArbCom felt that he could voluntarily modify his behaviour, I would expect it to be due to his opening statement, meaning the case could be settled by motion or rejected in entirety. KW is indeed correct, that I have seen sufficient evidence that I believe a block is the right course of action. However, as objective as I try to be, I know full well that my judgement in the matter is never going to be up to the standards I would expect from myself as an editor, let alone an arbitrator.

In all, I'd rather not go further into this line of discussion, as it will go nowhere positive. I can present diffs and argue for his block, but I don't want to do that - if I did, I would have done so at a venue where he might be blocked. I'd rather keep on civil terms with KW. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks WTT. Without saying whether I agree or disagree with you, I think you've made your position clear. I'm going to do a bit more reading, and will let you know if I have any further questions. --Elonka 19:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and other things ...

Thanks, that's what I needed, I'll take a look. BTW, I'd be interested in how you'd deal with the situation at List of castles in Italy? --Elonka 17:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, regarding the actual dispute, the it's fairly clear from both WP:RED and WP:LISTPURP that lists shouldn't really have red links, as that makes them more useful for the writer than the reader. As for how to handle it there - getting more eyes on the situation seems sensible, a third opinion, or even a quick RfC might be worthwhile. The first thing I'd do though is look for sources (perhaps try and grab Italian Castles and Country Seats from the library). If it were me, I'd probably remove them all to the talk page then check Google for each redlinked castle and put them back in one by one. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring?

Thanks. And would you see Polequant (talk · contribs) as a potential mentoring candidate? If so, I'd be very interested in observing your communication style with them, either at the list talkpage or their own usertalk. --Elonka 20:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in but my ears were burning....In terms of guidelines/policies on redlinks I think it's a bit of a grey area. WP:RED (referring to WP:WTAF) says that writing the articles are preferable to just adding a redlink. I wholeheartedly agree. However, it does not say that redlinks should automatically be removed from lists. In terms of WP:LISTPURP I would say this lands firmly in the "Information" camp. There is another side to this also - most of the entries in the list have been added by IPs or new users. If you start removing those entries and say that they should go to a relevant wikproject, or write the article first, it is likely to confuse someone who just wants to add some useful information. I haven't seen any entries on this list which appear to be false or non-notable, which is the usual problem you get with lists (particularly of people). It would be great if you encouraged people who did add entries to start the article or source it themselves rather than just remove it.

Anyway, the discussion wasn't about the correctness or not of having redlinks in a list. What was frustrating me was that Elonka did not have any reason to doubt these entries and seemingly made no effort to see if there were sources for themselves. This is what WP:V encourages you to do. It doesn't force you to, but neither does it force you to remove unsourced information, unless you have genuine doubts about it. To then dictate that someone else should source it or they would start removing things just struck me as being rather off. I can't say I've looked through all of the redlinks but I checked out a reasonable number and all of them had articles on Italian wikipedia. It would be great if we had articles on them on the english wikipedia too, and a redlink might, just might, encourage someone to start it. By completely removing them, and not even listing them on the talkpage, or even a relevant wikproject (if there is one) it doesn't give anyone a chance. The information that people had helpfully supplied would instead be lost, unless you happened to check back through the article history.

And by the way, if you want to check out my 'form' on this sort of thing, I pretty much sourced the whole of List of people from Leeds.

You think I need mentoring Elonka, yet you template me when you knew full well what my position was. I don't see any purpose behind that other than to piss me off. Polequant (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say, if you did what Worm suggests, and actually showed some willing to do some sourcing yourself, people might help out with that process. Handing down ultimatums and the like just gets peoples (and by that I mean my) back up. Polequant (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Polequant. I do understand the benefits of red links, they're a fantastic way to get people to write about the encyclopedia. However, they're not really appropriate unsourced in lists. Admittedly, this is a less clear cut case than people related lists - where it can often be based on opinion, and if the castles exist then they are pretty much de facto notable as geographic landmarks. But if you look at WP:RED, you will see that it says in the first paragraph "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles."

If you think about it, it makes sense. Whilst a red link in the context of an article might inspire a reader to write something, they would likely have context to bring across to the new article. In a list article, the benefit would be significantly smaller, as there is much less context - just the title of the list article. On the other hand, having a long list of unsourced red links is unhelpful for the reader - it goes against our requirement of verifiability, we have little or no control over what is added and so on. Moving them to the talk page, or to a relevant wikiproject allows interested writers to have a list of articles to create, whilst not having a large red list. What's more, lists like this are unlikely to ever be complete, so having items missing is in many ways better than having them red and unsourced.

Elonka, Polequant isn't someone I'd be looking at mentoring. At first glance he appeared to understand policies, react calmly and discuss the matter. Although he has a small number of edits and 6 months editing, I would expect him to be able to get along fine. With a few minutes more digging, I found that he's actually a returning user User:Quantpole, with 4 years of experience and thousands of edits, so I'd say my thoughts on that are well justified. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to review me in such depth, I know how much there is to read through. I also appreciate your opinion on the whole KW situation, which will help me keep perspective in the future, I'm sure. I'll do my best to take your comments on board. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My conclusions are similar, Elonka.

I have no doubt that WTT would be an asset for the committee, and would do more than his fair share of work, even as a newcomer.

On the other hand, his judgment, his exercise of power, and particularly his leadership of the (less disciplined and perspicacious) RfA-Reform network should be tempered by more experience.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks KW. I appreciate that and since I'm here for the long haul I'm always looking for more experience. I'm not 100% certain what you're suggesting regarding RfA reform, my role there is mostly doing research and moving posts to the relevant sub-pages. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Eluchil404

Just wanted to drop you a note responding to some of your concerns. While, I certainly respect your position and you raise some reasonable points, I do understand what Arbitration entails and fully expect to devote 20+ hours a week dealing with it in the (unlikely) event that I am elected. I have always found the ArbCom pages more interesting reading than, say, ANI since actual decision are made there and I have followed every proposed decision for several years. I don't comment much since as a non-Arb I don't have much to say. I am , obviously, not familiar with what goes on off-wiki: emails, ban appeals, etc. but have seen Arbs say that they take up half or more of their time. My hope is to focus on on-wiki work, at least initially, but the best laid plans of mice and men... In any event, I should have more time to devout to Wikipedia in 2012 whether I am elected to the Committee or not. Last year, I realized that I just didn't have the time to make such a commitment and so did not run, but this coming year, I will have the time. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eluchil404, thanks for popping in. As a suggestion, perhaps you could try offering some uninvolved statements at various arbitration cases? It would give you a good feel for the kinds of things that are being discussed, would be extremely welcome to the arbitrators themselves (who generally have very few uninvolved editors commenting), and would also give voters such as myself more of a basis to help determine your ability to judge cases. --Elonka 17:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I believe the only case open currently is Betacommand 3, but I'll certainly take a look at all the pending requests. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)