There is no history, but there are timestamps. Elonka changed her initial statement, which originally included a detailed accusation of Wheel warring.
- first paragraph, original version:
KillerChihuahua, I'd like to be very clear about some concerns that I have, in relation to your reversing some of my actions in the pseudoscience topic area. The WP:WHEEL policy is very clear that administrators should not battle with administrators in this way. See also the October 2008 ArbCom ruling, which says, "Administrators are expected to act collegially and to respect one another's decisions. If one administrator disagrees with an action taken by another, then unless the situation is an emergency, he or she should seek to discuss the matter with the second administrator or to raise the issue on a noticeboard and seek consensus.". On January 17, it would appear that you disregarded this ruling. You edit-warred at both an article talkpage[1] and at an arbitration case page,[2] including uncivil edit summaries, such as accusing me of trying to "poison the well" and having a "little powerfest".[3] You also posted to my talkpage, accusing me of "using an ArbCom case to win a content dispute"[4] and accusing me of having a "delusion" that I was uninvolved.[5][6] You reverted me yet another time at the admin log page of a different article, Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log, restoring the WP:POINTy violation of an editor who has since been blocked for two weeks, QuackGuru (talk · contribs). You also undermined me at his page as well, again accusing me of using admin access to win a content dispute.[7] But you had no diffs or any evidence of any kind on this. When diffs are requested, you disregard the queries,[8] or provide diffs of what other people have said, but without providing any actual evidence.[9]
- Page as immediately before deletion here:
KillerChihuahua, I'd like to be very clear about some concerns that I have, in relation to your reversing some of my actions in the pseudoscience topic area. I have been trying to treat you with respect since you are an administrator, even though you are also an involved editor in this topic area. But you have been edit-warring at both an article talkpage[10] and at an arbitration case page,[11] including uncivil edit summaries, such as accusing me of trying to "poison the well" and having a "little powerfest".[12] You also posted to my talkpage, accusing me of "using an ArbCom case to win a content dispute"[13] and accusing me of having a "delusion" that I was uninvolved.[14][15] You reverted me yet another time at the admin log page of a different article, Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log, restoring the WP:POINTy violation of an editor who has since been blocked for two weeks, QuackGuru (talk · contribs). You also criticized me at his page as well, again accusing me of using admin access to win a content dispute.[16] But you had no diffs or any evidence of any kind on this. When diffs are requested, you disregard the queries,[17] or provide diffs of what other people have said, but without providing any actual evidence.[18]
When I contacted arbitration clerk Penwhale (talk · contribs) about your actions, he reverted things to my version at the article talkpage and case page,[19] but you accused me of "forum-shopping" at his talkpage,[20] and continued to repeat your diffless allegations that I was "involved" in the content dispute.[21][22] You also posted this to admin SebastianHelm (talk · contribs), that I was involved in "heavy editing" in the topic area,[23] and you challenged my uninvolved status at ANI.[24] In short, a lynch mob had formed, false charges were leveled at me, and rather than trying to de-escalate the dispute, you just joined right in and started repeating the false charges on multiple pages. When a subpage where I was collecting diffs was sent to MfD, you showed up there too, this time accusing me of maintaining an attack page, violating WP:POINT, and being tendentious,[25] and with that not enough, you started yet another Elonka thread at User talk:Crohnie, where you continued to complain about me,[26] such as to say that my note to you was "silly and pompous", and that I was being disruptive and divisive,[27] and that "many people disagree with Elonka's activities."[28] At my own talkpage, you jumped into the middle of a conversation with another editor, to accuse me of having a "lack of ethics".[29] When that thread went downhill, I opted to delete it from my talkpage, and again, you reverted me on my own talkpage, restoring the entire thread[30] even though WP:BLANKING clearly says that users are allowed to delete messages from their own talkpages. When I attempted to move the discussion off-wiki, things didn't go much better, and even worse, you started mis-representing the emails on-wiki, accusing me of a "slew of insults", and "sneaky emails".[31][32] When Orangemarlin started a request for clarification at WP:RFAR, you posted a statement where you again accused me of using an ArbCom case to win a content dispute, saying that I was "editing by proxy", and "intimidating editors".[33] At the talkpage of admin Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), you accused me of being on a "power trip".[34]
When I contacted you about the edit-warring,[35] you were less than cooperative, and simply escalated with the incivility. When others such as administrators Penwhale (talk · contribs) and Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) contacted you with concerns, you denied that any edit-warring had taken place,[36][37][38][39] but did not at any time bother to clarify that you were acting simply as a normal editor, and not as an administrator. At ArbCom, you made the bizarre claim that "no one but Elonka editwarred" at the pseudosciences talkpage to keep the list there,[40] which is yet another incorrect statement, as both admin Penwhale (talk · contribs)[41] and admin/arbitrator Jayvdb (talk · contribs)[42] had endorsed my version. Your ArbCom statement had another false statement where you said that I was ignoring "30-40 editors", but by the very list which I'd compiled, it showed that there were 25 editors on that page,[43] the vast majority of whom had no comment on the list.
KC, the way that you have been behaving is not acceptable. It undermines other administrators, and has been escalating disputes. If you continue with reverting other administrators' actions, towards me or anyone else, I am considering following another step in dispute resolution, such as to file a Request for Comment. Before taking such an action, however, I wanted to contact you directly. Do you still feel that your actions were appropriate? Do you feel that you would be justified in continuing to do the same things in the future? Or would you handle things differently? It is my own feeling that when administrators disagree, regardless of whether they are involved or uninvolved, they should engage in polite discussion about the points of disagreement, and work together to determine a consensus on how the situation should be handled.
I've been pondering how best to proceed here. I don't want to file an RfC, because as we both know, it's probably just going to result in more drama, with not a lot of help. I could try filing an arb case, but they'll probably kick it back unless I try the RfC first. So, I'm coming to you again, to see if we can figure out a way through this. What I would like to happen is if you could apologize for reverting me, and promise not to do it again. I'd like you to apologize for making false charges about me on multiple talkpages all over the wiki, and where feasible, I'd like you to go back and remove, refactor, or amend your comments. And I'd like you to acknowledge that it's important to get evidence before making accusations at other administrators. It's very important that when dealing with a dispute, that administrators act in a calm and measured fashion. If admins are edit-warring at a disputed article, it just escalates the entire dispute, which is the opposite of what administrators are supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be rolemodels, and behave in the way in which we would like other editors to behave. A much better way to handle things is for the administrators who are involved in a dispute, to demonstrate by example how the dispute should be resolved -- with polite and collegial discussion and consensus-building, and not with insults and edit-warring.
So, can you and I figure out a way through this, without having to go through another step in WP:DR?
I look forward to your thoughts, Elonka 02:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion edit
tl; dr, but you do know Wheel warring is about admin actions not editor actions, right? And bogus "warnings" are just that - bogus. You can "warn" all over the freaking place, but its not anything but you pasting junk on pages if you have no grounds in their actions and policy. I have attempted to begin a conversation on your talk page before noticing this extremely long screed. Please take a look there. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I've scanned the whole thing now. This is my synopsis: KillerChihuahua didn't agree with Elonka's actions in which she cited AE and the SV motion; KillerChihuahua told Elonka of her concerns; KillerChihuahua also attempted to cleanup and reduce the drama Elonka was causing; and now Elonka wants apologies and for KillerChihuahua to rewrite all KC's posts or else Elonka'll go to Rfc. Is that about right?
- I am ordered to apologize for basically every statement I've made concerning Elonka, including on ANI and Rfar? No attempt to persuade me I might have erred, mind you. Just "apologize and say you won't do it again". Is that the basic idea?
- You have about what, a dozen or more complaints here? Wanna go point by point through them? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, want to pick your top 3, and then I'll pick one of those, and we'll start there? Or even better, to get the ball rolling, how about you pick one thing that you could have done better? --Elonka 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't we be a little more fair and balancd about this? I have received no clear response to any of my concerns. You pick your top concern about my actions, and I'll pick my top concern about yours. Then we'll cover one, then the other. Flip you for who goes first. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- My top concern is your reverting me on multiple pages, followed by your bad-mouthing me on multiple pages and making false charges, followed by your general incivility, followed by your bias and the way that you jump into the middle of things when one of your "friends" is challenged, followed by the way that your actions escalate disputes rather than de-escalate them, followed by your inability to admit when you're wrong. Okay, your turn? --Elonka 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't we be a little more fair and balancd about this? I have received no clear response to any of my concerns. You pick your top concern about my actions, and I'll pick my top concern about yours. Then we'll cover one, then the other. Flip you for who goes first. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, want to pick your top 3, and then I'll pick one of those, and we'll start there? Or even better, to get the ball rolling, how about you pick one thing that you could have done better? --Elonka 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore the ABF and focus on your misunderstaning of wheel warring. Its not my top concern, but unless we're using the same terms we'll never get anywhere. Do you understand that wheel warring means warring Admin actions, such as block/unblock/reblock, protect/unprotect/reprotect, and not edit/revrt/re-revert? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding, from watching disputes, RfCs, and arb cases, is that there is disagreement about what is or isn't wheel-warring. Some administrators feel that no admin action should be reversed, unless first there is a discussion with the first administrator. Other administrators seem to feel that it's perfectly acceptable to revert another administrator without discussion. Though I think that some of the latter group have a double-standard, where they feel it's okay for themselves to revert other admins, but if any of their own actions were reverted, they'd go ballistic with rage. --Elonka 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you understand this to mean admin actions only or all actions taken by an admin? That is the question. Edits? Or not? Warnings? Or just Block, Protect, Delete. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wheel warring generally refers to specific uses of admin tools: Block, protect, delete. However, some admin actions are outside of that strict definition. For example, though page bans are not specifically listed at WP:WHEEL, it is my opinion that if a ban were placed and removed multiple times on an editor, that would probably fit the definition of wheel-warring. There are other grey area situations as well. --Elonka 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then we can start at the top: You have several sentences about WP:WHEEL and then tell me admins should discuss with each other. First contact we had about this recent series of events was me trying to talk to you on your talk page here. Are we in agreement about this statement? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to repeat my question, with boldface to the bit you seem to have missed. Your attacks are noted and irrelevent. Ok, then we can start at the top: You have several sentences about WP:WHEEL and then tell me admins should discuss with each other. First contact we had about this recent series of events was me trying to talk to you on your talk page here. Are we in agreement about this statement? Please answer the question I asked, and resist the temptation to try to tar and feather me with your false and off-topic accusation. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, I think this needs to explored further. As I went looking through the history of the Orgone article, I see that you engaged in an edit war there, jumping in to revert to Orangemarlin's version of the article. You did this without having been a participant in the talkpage discussion, except to post after the fact and call Martinphi "obnoxious". I would say that this makes you an involved editor in this topic area. Would you agree? --Elonka 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Its irrelevant to the topic at hand, and bears the appearance of you digging up ancient junk to change the focus from the topic at hand. Its a red herring, and I'm ignoring it. Please, for the third time, answer the question I asked. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, I think it's directly related, especially considering that you've been swinging like Spiderman from page to page all over Wikipedia, complaining about how I'm heavily involved in editing in the pseudoscience topic area. But as I look deeper into your contribs, I see that the opposite is true: You've been engaged in substantive editing of the Pseudoscience article, you've reverted in favor of Orangemarlin and Guettarda, you reverted Levine2112 at the Chiropractic article, and that's only what I've found in a few minutes of looking, and I think it's just the tip of the iceberg. This is all highly inappropriate, especially considering that you were reverting me at the Pseudoscience case page. KillerChihuahua, I'd been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were an uninvolved admin in this topic area, but I see that assessment was incorrect, and that you are heavily involved as an editor. This puts a very different spin on things. --Elonka 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't recall ever trying to give the impression that I'd not edited any Pseudoscience article; although it has been a while, I have indeed edited in that category. I have not, to the best of my recollection, edited the "List of pseudosciences" article where all this erupted. I was uninvolved with that specific article, and with the particular dispute about the list, until it arrived on my event horizon and I posted to your talk page about it. I didn't revert you at the pseudoscience case page. I edited your listing, which included a negative comment about an editor with whom you've had a running battle for months. That editor was indeed OM. An editor you went to about it reverted me, restoring the comments (which I meant to remove) and the link (which I did not, my error); and an Arbiter has since removed your comments. All of this has nothing to do with your unique interpretation of the SV ruling which led you to think that your edits were sacrosanct. It has nothing to do with whether your list was a Good Idea or a bad idea. And it sure heck does not have anything to do with your multiple accusations and instances of ABF made against me on this page. Regarding the worth of Guettarda and OrangeMarlin's content vs. Levine's, I'd take two science experts who write well over a civil POV Fringe editor any day, and make no apologies for it. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The "notifications" section of the case page is supposed to be modified only by uninvolved administrators. You should not have changed my notification. It is bad form to edit someone else's comments at any time, but especially bad form to modify an administrator's official notice. What if you, as an administrator, issued a warning to an editor, and then one of that editor's friends came in and deleted or changed your warning? Can't you see how inappropriate that is? --Elonka 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't recall ever trying to give the impression that I'd not edited any Pseudoscience article; although it has been a while, I have indeed edited in that category. I have not, to the best of my recollection, edited the "List of pseudosciences" article where all this erupted. I was uninvolved with that specific article, and with the particular dispute about the list, until it arrived on my event horizon and I posted to your talk page about it. I didn't revert you at the pseudoscience case page. I edited your listing, which included a negative comment about an editor with whom you've had a running battle for months. That editor was indeed OM. An editor you went to about it reverted me, restoring the comments (which I meant to remove) and the link (which I did not, my error); and an Arbiter has since removed your comments. All of this has nothing to do with your unique interpretation of the SV ruling which led you to think that your edits were sacrosanct. It has nothing to do with whether your list was a Good Idea or a bad idea. And it sure heck does not have anything to do with your multiple accusations and instances of ABF made against me on this page. Regarding the worth of Guettarda and OrangeMarlin's content vs. Levine's, I'd take two science experts who write well over a civil POV Fringe editor any day, and make no apologies for it. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring accusation edit
I see you've now added in several places that I've edit warred. I would appreciate you striking that; to the best of my recollection I have not done so and I have seen no difs from you regarding that. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, how many diffs would you like? Or check for yourself, in the history of Orgone,[44] Pseudoscience (multiple diffs), and Chiropractic.[45] As an interesting side note, I also saw you reverting at Political positions of Sarah Palin,[46][47] which surprised me because I thought you were also working there as an admin placing discretionary sanctions. But I haven't looked into the situation in great detail yet. --Elonka 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at Chiropractic first. From 20 Mar 2008 (I haven't checked further back in the history) thru now I made that one edit on Chiropractic, which had the edit summary "much of this was housekeeping - please don't blanket revert, Levine, be selective. Listing on talk is not a bad idea since someone has listed for Rfc)" - you call that Edit warring? Really? Another unique and special definition. One edit is edit warring. You have far more than that, were you edit warring too? You had one on 22 Jan, one on 8 Jan, two on 6 Jan, one on 6 July, two on 5 July... wow. Worse than me, since you have more edits? this is nonsense. What is your game here? You don't seem to be actually trying to reach a mutual understanding or anything like that. You're accusing me of edit warring and provide among your evidence a single edit to an article to which you've made quite a few more edits. You do realize this makes no sense at all, right? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- My own edits were extremely minor link changes, which were discussed at ANI and the consensus was that they did not negate my uninvolved status. I found several edits of yours too that were minor changes, reference formatting, reverting vandalism, etc. I don't call those edit-warring. However, when you start getting into substantive content changes where you are reverting good faith changes by other editors, that's a different beast, because it shows that you're taking a stand on the content wars. --Elonka 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- And I state again; editing is not edit warring. I daresay many of my edits were minor or reversions of vandalism; some were content I am sure. Neither is edit warring. You have accused me of edit warring; you've provided difs of me making ONE edit to an article to which you've made what, SEVEN in the same timeframe, but you're calling me an edit warrior? Plus another single edit, and an article name of an article I have edited a little. Please strike that. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I define the reverting of another editor's good faith changes, especially when combined with a confrontational edit summary, as edit-warring. Perhaps you should re-read Wikipedia:Edit war. --Elonka 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- As you have moved the most active part of this discussion to the talk page, I will be contributing there also. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The intent of this discussion is to have a one on one chat with you to try and work things out. If you're just going to be inviting a bunch of other editors in and turning the talkpage into the "Drama du Jour", I'm more inclined to just delete the page entirely. I'm doing you the courtesy of trying to have a good faith conversation, let's please not de-rail the discussion here. --Elonka 22:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I invited no one here; why would you delete this exactly? Your rationale for the threat is unclear to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The intent of this discussion is to have a one on one chat with you to try and work things out. If you're just going to be inviting a bunch of other editors in and turning the talkpage into the "Drama du Jour", I'm more inclined to just delete the page entirely. I'm doing you the courtesy of trying to have a good faith conversation, let's please not de-rail the discussion here. --Elonka 22:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- As you have moved the most active part of this discussion to the talk page, I will be contributing there also. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I define the reverting of another editor's good faith changes, especially when combined with a confrontational edit summary, as edit-warring. Perhaps you should re-read Wikipedia:Edit war. --Elonka 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- And I state again; editing is not edit warring. I daresay many of my edits were minor or reversions of vandalism; some were content I am sure. Neither is edit warring. You have accused me of edit warring; you've provided difs of me making ONE edit to an article to which you've made what, SEVEN in the same timeframe, but you're calling me an edit warrior? Plus another single edit, and an article name of an article I have edited a little. Please strike that. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding Sarah Palin: Yes, we (the other editors and I) discussed the few edits I made back in Sep. before the article went on probation recently, and whether I could be considered dispassionate and uninvolved now. There were some concerns, Kelly was fairly vocal that I recall, but they agreed to give it a go. I've gotten a You rock! from Kelly recently, and another editor gave me this lovely barnstar[48] for my work there, so I'd say that worked out well. It is important to have the co-operation, and respect, and preferably the full support, of the editors on a page which you are trying to mediate or otherwise enforce sanctions or policy on. This is something which you seem to dismiss as "disgruntled editors complaining" but Elonka, you do not have support for your efforts at the List of Pseudoscience or indeed, throughout the Cat. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
KC, you've been posting a diff of this page on multiple other locations around the project, which kind of defeats the purpose of having a quiet chat between the two of us. If you'd like to continue with a one-on-one discussion, I am willing to continue, but if this is just going to turn into another drama thread with multiple editors jumping in, I am not. If the latter, then we can just proceed towards an RfC, which will give a more structured environment for everyone to weigh in. Is that what you want? --Elonka 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, I posted two - one to verify with Kelly that I wasn't misrepresenting his views, where I specified to tell me on his talk page if I was in error, and I would fix it here[49] and once on my talk page to Hipocrite informing him of your threat to delete this, as he is now engaged and putting forth effort. This is the first I've heard that you expected this to be mano-a-mano; I informed the only other editor who has commented here and linked your objection and threat to delete. Two is not multiple and you have made no reasonable objection to either.
- So I'm to understand that this is a Walled Garden for the two of us? No one else allowed to comment? Is that what you had in mind? Please recall, you had not until just now specified this. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The title of this page is "User:Elonka/Work1". It's an obvious scratchpad page, and was never intended as a location for discussions. You seemed to want to engage in discussion about the post that I was preparing, and that's fine, I'm doing you a courtesy and allowing discussion here, rather than just proceeding towards an RfC. If you and I can work things out, great. If not, well at least we can say we tried. But are you willing to try? --Elonka 22:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you want it to be just the two of us, why did you remove the banner?
- this was prep for an Rfc? Are you joking? Is this how you usually prep for an Rfc? Like, with no attempt to resolve the issue with the other editor beforehand? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Multiple editors have been attempting to speak with you about your behavior, but you don't appear to be hearing what they're saying. --Elonka 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see a couple of peeps on your talk page who disagree with minor points of mine. Not quite what you're characterizing it as. Why won't you answer simple questions like the two above? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Multiple editors have been attempting to speak with you about your behavior, but you don't appear to be hearing what they're saying. --Elonka 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)