User talk:Elonka/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Elonka, sorry I didn't get to spam you before you saw it. ;).... I'm Ched, nice to meet you. Thanks for getting involved. —

04:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Elonka. Stay away from Ched. He's a trouble maker. But actually I came here to ask if, based on your puzzle expertise, someone saying "So what I suggest that you do is to rearrange these letters into a well known phrase or saying 'kucf fof'" amounts to incivility? What if there are well known phrases that can be arranged from the letters that are perfectly innocent? Are there any? This is not actually an important request. But it amuses me. And I can post this comment or improve the encyclopedia... Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say both comments are uncivil: the scrambled one, and saying that someone is a trouble maker. --Elonka 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you post this here CoM? Who are you trying to get in trouble? You must surely know that Elonka warned me a couple of days ago about a comment I made about

Fatuorum

23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't link anything. So unless she went digging I don't see how there would be a problem.

I'm easily entertained and I like simple puzzles. What can I tell you? No, I didn't know Elonka warned you, or didn't remember anyway. She should apologize for that. You are very collegial and should be allowed to express yourself on your own talk page and to Chillum given all the hypocrisy, arrogance, double standards, bullying, and abuse that goes on here. :)

Wasn't Chillum banned for his socks... oops I mean "alternate accounts"?

So there are no other words that can be made with those letters? Are you sure? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure of only one thing. It doesn't pay to be honest on wikipedia. --

Fatuorum

01:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically, nothing pays on Wikipedia. But honesty is rewarded least of all. But maybe it is its own reward? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen

WP:CLEANUP. For example, Category:Articles that need to be wikified? --Elonka

01:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dearest Elonka, you have no idea how difficult it is to just edit articles quietly and in good faith. There is almost always some rogue coming around making trouble. See Sandstein, WMC, Tarc, and Geronimo for more details.

With all the frustrations they cause and the distracting demands of the drama boards and the drama mongerers who inhabit them, a little levity and distraction is often the only sanity maintaining escape available. If only were some group of capable and respected editors that actually assisted in keeping order and helping resolve disputes... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Astonishing. Do you ever bother to check your facts before you pontificate Elonka? It seeems like 59% of your edits are to articles, as opposed to 61% of mine. Has dishonesty become a requirement for wikipedia functionaries? --

Fatuorum

03:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:GuillaumeDeVillaret.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk

) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As your stamp image was tagged as being unacceptable, you might like to offer an opinion about changing their guidelines for stamps such as yours which would be considered

talk

) 04:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:L'Oiseau Blanc stamp.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk

) 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I absolutely swear, I made the possibly-compromise edit over at Atlantis before I went back over to Facebook to check on a thread I had previously posted on Mike Selinker's page, and saw your name in both places (Mike's page, not his thread). Yours was one of the 6 friend-of-Mike profiles FB chose to show me that time. Hi -- small world. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that's funny! I see you know Sean, too! Small world, indeed... --Elonka 03:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I only "Facebook-know" Sean, whereas Mike and I have broken bread together. I also once wrote an article (unpublished) on cryptography rules for the GURPS role-playing game. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Elonka/Work1

Now that the case is over, may I suggest that this page is no longer appropriate. Just passing thru, Rhomb (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting contribs there, Rhomb (talk · contribs). Only 12 edits, and you freely admit that you're an alt account.[3] Anyway, yes, I agree that the page will go away soon, but I'm going to keep it for awhile longer until I get all the archive links updated. My guess is that the diffs may be needed again at some point, and I'd like to have everything in one place rather than having to dig it all up again. :) --Elonka 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message Elonka, it's nice to know when one's name is brought up at AN/I. I took a look at the discussion bu can't really see any point in commenting. Alun (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed

Hi Elonka, I just noticed that you are active again after a long break. Welcome back. I hope your break from here was refreshing to you. Well I just wanted to say hello. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re. Friday the 13th, 1307

I'd have thought, Elonka, considering the bio on your user page, that you'd have better-appreciated the point I am trying to make here...
{*sigh*}... I'll give some thought to better spelling out that point, then, I guess...
Regards ;) --

Wikiscient

00:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Formerly protected Gilad Atzmon problem re-asserts self

You asked it be unprotected and another editor did so. The reason it was protected is because one individual (and his drive-by supporters) kept adding cherry picked primary source quotes to make Atzmon look bad. And now he's back at it. He includes long winded SoapBox explanations for why the article must prove how evil Atzmon is. Including since Protection lifted. And now he's removed the BLP dispute tag.

As you can see from his contributions he's quite obsessed with Atzmon and it's the main article he's edited over last year or so. I doubt he'll listen to any rational neutral editor - and biased editors who keep the conflict going keep getting attracted to the article when it's announced publicly. What's the best recourse?

WP:ARBPIA and ask he be banned from the article? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk

) 00:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Elonka's Day!

User:Elonka has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Elonka's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Elonka! Peace, Rlevse 00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here .

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see

User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk

• 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Username

Hi Elonka. Sometime ago I changed my username from Xoniagar to

talk

Hi Elonka! What is the significance of this notice. I've followed the links and am none the wiser. Does it determine specific guidelines as to how editing on this article should proceed, in some way differently from other articles? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! I've gone ahead and clarified what it means on the talkpage. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! --Elonka 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Murphy as self-published ref.

I've suggested the possibility of restricted, moderated use of the disputed source. This is the diff. Trying to find some way of resolving this issue. Hope my bringing this to your notice is not somehow inappropriate (walking on eggs these days:-) Anyway it might be a way to break the deadlock and get energies diverted back to the Article. RashersTierney (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely appropriate.  :) Feel free to bring up anything you like, including any concerns about sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, etc. The key is venue. On the article talkpage, it's important to keep discussions focused on the article. But on an administrator's talkpage, you can bring up pretty much anything you want, as long as it's done in a civil fashion.  :) --Elonka 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't think I've made my case too well, judging from reaction, at the RSN. I thought this new initiative might help. RashersTierney (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a content issue with me, I don't have any text I wish to remove at the moment, and I think it quite possible that your content will remain unblemished with neither tag nor faulty ref as simply uncontentious. Let's give it a moment to consider and if no issues arise - remove the ^{[citation needed]} tag in the near future.99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The outright removal of the ref. doesn't appear consistent with:

I endorse everything Fifelfoo has said, and have a few more points that may help. For history articles, especially those that relate to nationalism of any kind, the bar for sourcing is set high. Since Dr Murphy appears to be a qualified historian with a record of relevant publication, this source falls into the category of a scholar's self-published work. It can be used, but other sources should be preferred if possible. What I can't see immediately looking at the article is whether the statements this source is used for are controversial in any way. And are there any alternative sources that could be used for the same details? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Family commitments mean I won't be contributing here for a while. Can you see that it is restored, (with the restrictions appropriate to a self-published work). Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore above. Its already been done. Best.RashersTierney (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, thank you for your patience, as I said on my talk page, I'm a little put out, but understand your reasoning about my edits, though the recent addition at the ANI didn't help. I apologize if I'm sounding a little upset, but am a little frustrated at the moment. Frmatt (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. Wikipedia can definitely be a frustrating place at times! When I find myself getting hot under the collar, I either step away from the computer, or I go do some

WP:CLEANUP. I especially enjoy working through the pages at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, though Category:Articles that need to be wikified is good too, either to wikify articles, or remove the tag if they've already been handled. And it can be quite therapeutic to work on pages that aren't in dispute, in areas where people are actually grateful for the help! :) --Elonka

05:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions...have definitely had my fill of wiki-drama and high-intensity discussions for a while (too many ANI threads, and I'm the nominator of an article that has run to 125kbs on AfD...If you're okay with it, I'm going to copy/paste your last comment onto my userpage so that I've got somewhere to go when I get this frustrated! Frmatt (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be honored. Copy away!  :) --Elonka 05:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain this edit please. BigDunc 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was an attempt to clarify which restrictions are still in force, so as to assist with further arbitration enforcement. --Elonka 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

At your direction, a second opinion has been requested:[4]99.135.174.186 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are involved with this (dynamic) 1P 99, this user has similar editing history, if it is of interest to the present case the details are on my talkpage.

• Note 99.142.x.x once posted an article talk page notice about shifting ip, implying it was due to service provider technology rather than intent to shift ips.

  But clearly there appears to be a pattern of (WP-experienced) contention (and associated admin forum drama) which is facilitated by a regularly changing ip. [Recent blocks on two ips: 48 hours, 31 hours.]

  Of course, it would seem to be impossible to force such an editor to create an account if their ip is going to change every few days. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the info, it's helpful. --Elonka 16:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread on this

here, if you would like to participate. --Elonka

17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've lost patients with the IP.99 (at WP:SOCK). Despite my pointing out how 'creating an account' is a good thing, he/she chooses to remain a hopping IP. It's become apparent to me, that he/she prefers to be treated as a troll. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Elonka. Working through the Unblock backlog, and came to this block. Looks ok, as I'm seeing another revert on 21 October (here) that falls within the 1 week restriction. Do you have a link to that 1RR restriction, though? It's not at AE, I don't think, but I can't track it down. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm posting it at BigDunc's page now... Shall we make that the centralized location for this discussion, or would you rather keep it here at my talkpage? --Elonka 17:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fine - I see the editor has brought it up there, as well. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here -- when was BigDunc placed on probation, so that the 1RR/week would apply to him? Seems to me it would just apply to the original participants, unless he was specifically added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, would it be alright if we kept the discussion centralized at BigDunc's talkpage? --Elonka 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bad block! I think you should unblock BigDunc to be honest.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Elonka I am the only editor who said they would adhere to 1RR on the IB article, I warned you that this causes nothing but trouble as unless you are going to patrol all articles related to thr troubles some editors that you notice will get blocked while others wouldn't. My suggestion of local consensus for the 1RR was ignored and now we are at ANI. BigDunc 19:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hoping that the discussion will help bring some clarity to the situation. You and I both know that the "1 revert per week" had already been discussed at the talkpage, but if the ANI thread helps to avoid situations like this in the future, it'll be a good thing! --Elonka 19:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could you look over this as it appears AE is not the place to report community sanctions. BigDunc 23:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Your last post on ANI says it all to me and I will have no more interaction with you, it is disingenuous of you to say I knew about 1 revert per week, I have been editing Troubles articles for years now and the only restriction I was aware of was 1RR per day. Instead of admiting your mistake you try to fudge the matter and hoist the blame on me, well that is BS, you were wrong simple. BigDunc 11:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, you saw me cross out the "one revert per day" part. You saw me say "one revert per week". You were engaged in the conversation, and even repeated back your understanding of the 1RR, though you disagreed with it. --Elonka 14:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started to expand the Jim Sanborn article a bit. I might submit it to DYK in a few days in an attempt to bring it to the attention of more editors and hopefully enlist some to help on building the article up. Cheers :) Calmer Waters 00:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. On the advice of my admin coach/mentor I have updated my user name from B.s.n.R.N. to Calmer Waters which I've been told is less ambiguous than a seemingly random set of characters. Thought I would just point that out incase it looked odd to you. Cheers Calmer Waters 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I was wondering about that, why there were suddenly two people editing all the Sanborn articles. It makes sense now, thanks for letting me know! :) --Elonka 16:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this ok? Majorly talk 18:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, on Term lengths, you signed twice (under Two years and under Three years): [5]. I just noticed because I was looking carefully after my vote was deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that this was okay, since in the "Poll" section, it says, "Sign multiple options if more than one is desirable to you.". --Elonka 01:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I've just seen that-- I was additionally confused because one of Hypocrite's double entries might be in the wrong place; he put a mention of "tactical voting" under "18 months" on term lengths, so I thought it was a mistake, and one of my votes was aparently deleted in an edit conflict. Anyway, I've asked if monitors are following the page, so looks good. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I guaranteed, his second edit since the block lifted was to come back and post something on my page... and the next was to further prove his plans to ignore any policies or warnings... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for letting me know, and for your patience! --Elonka 15:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, ma'am... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I've asked that the Aubane reliability issue be revisited. Just letting eds who were involved in the initial discussion know its reopened. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please cast an eye over the Juice Plus article when you have time? Over the past months several editors without a history of editing there (including a couple who were rather unrestrained in their criticism of RIR) have commented on the negative tone of the Juice Plus article. Recent attemps to amend the paragraph on folate and homocysteine response have been met by stone-walling and editor denigration (accusations of SPA, meat/sock puppetry and COI have been made) from RIR. I think it may be time for another review of this article - I don't wish that on anyone but the situation is untenable as it stands. Please take a look. I'm posting this on Shell's page too). Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to semi-protect this article? The too long plot section is primarily being restored by IP editors.

Thanks for your interventions at

While I'd expect an Admin to know this, Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

Now how does the player describe themselves? Do they describe themselves as Irish or British? We are not intrested here on how others describe them, but how they self identify. Northern Ireland as opposed to Northern Irish is at least

WP:NPOV in the absence of any referenced sources when BLP is concerned. On the subject of Northern Ireland a high degree of sensitivity is required. Northern Irish is not and never has been a nationality. --Domer48_'fenian'

23:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The players are from Northern Ireland. One played for Northern Ireland. Northern Irish is a footballing nationality. It has its own team. Mooretwin (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, just call'em British. Thank goodness, Thompson doesn't self-indentify as a martian. Otherwise, Trevor Thompson (Martian footballer) would look rather funny. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Irish is a footballing nationality." Maybe the Admin can explain, but football is not a nationality. Now I've outlined our policy above on BLP please edit accordingly and there will not be a problem, however as of now I suggest you provide the sources that would be needed. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On another note, Elonka could you possibly address your concerns to these edits and edit summeries? They contain

IMHO Elonka, the BLP articles should be using British for those born post-1707 & post-1922 (in the case of Northern Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Whee, okay, let me try and answer a few of these:

1. I am probably not going to be able to personally monitor every Ireland-related article on Wikipedia.
2. WP:BLP
   is indeed an important policy, but it doesn't immediately apply to every single detail on a biography, it is mainly concerned with negative information. For other disputes, normal dispute resolution procedures may be more appropriate
3. If there's a clear case to move an article to another title, file a request at
   WP:RM
   . If other uninvolved editors agree, the article will be moved. If the consensus is truly obvious, then there may be a case for moving other articles that fall under the same rule. It may even be worth adding something to one of the naming guidelines. Is there any consensus precedent for this "Northern Ireland / Northern Irish" debate?

--Elonka 00:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Jogging my memory) I believe there was a discussion (which I was involved in) at WP:BLP, concerning the usage of 'Northern Irish'. I believe we chose from Northern Ireland as a neutral usage. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no preference what the title is, but I do have to ask, is it even necessary to specify nationality in the disambiguation tag? Why not just "Footballer"? --Elonka 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We've got a Trevor Thompson (footballer) article. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Could it be disambiguated some other way? By birth year, or which team they're on? --Elonka 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep 'birth year' is how we handle at the Ice hockey articles. But, neither Thompson article shows a 'brith year'. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I got (through external links), howabout moving Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) to Trevor Thompson (b. 1936)? GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The simple rule of thumb is how the persons self identify. In the absence of a source, we use Northern Ireland. I agree Elonka "Why not just "Footballer." Northern Ireland Footballer is, in the absence of a source per

There's already such an article, the English fellow Trevor Thompson (footballer). -- GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For me to get into the middle and invoke BLP, I would need to see some reasonable indicator that this was genuinely an urgent matter. For example, can anyone provide a link to a source, that says that "Northern Irish" is a pejorative term, and that the politically correct version is "Northern Ireland"? If not, then I still recommend going through

WP:RM. Get some uninvolved opinions into the mix, and then once there's a clear consensus, there will be a solid precedent to use for other similar cases. --Elonka

01:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another fucking edit/move war created by Mooretwin, how much time do we all have to waste on this every week!? He knows using "Northern Irish" is frowned upon and causes BLP and NPOV issue but he just does it to stir shit up and has admins like Elonka to support this bullshit. Just because you are from Northern Ireland doesnt make you Northern Irish, anyone with even the smallest bit of knowledge of the situation would know that - like GoodDay said use the year of birth as is done with others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 November 2009

VK blocked for 48 hours. --Elonka 01:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance of he's being unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The irony of Who is the personal attack on ya fuckin lapdog? is presumably lost on Vk, but tread carefully here Elonka. I applaud your attempts at establishing zero tolerance of personal attacks, however the level of discourse in this area is such that such language is typical. Blocking some, but not others, for personal attacks risks raising tension even further. Whether you like it or not, you will now be considered "involved" in the eyes of many of the participants. Expect the Vk et al defense team to file motion at AN/I shortly... Rockpocket 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka you have things backwards, using "Northern Irish" is frowned upon with Northern Ireland in this situation more

Regarding the Northern Ireland / Northern Irish issue, my talkpage is not the location to debate this question of content. Please remember that one of the tenets of the community sanction on Troubles-related articles (see {{

RfC, but my genuine advice is that RM is probably the simplest option. To be clear: Anyone who continues to try and argue about this naming matter, rather than requesting advice from neutral parties, could be perceived as violating the sanctions. If you're not sure how to file an RM request, please ask and I'll be happy to show you how. --Elonka

16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Coming from
  Bobby Campbell (footballer born 1956); I would suggest you move them there. I would do so myself but feel it would be better for you to do it as the involved admin. Kind regards, GiantSnowman
  18:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no preference on article title, and as an administrator, I am not even allowed to get involved in questions of content. However, I strongly encourage you to file a "Requested Move" request at the article's talkpage. In short: There are two ways that the article could be moved to a different title at this point: (1) The editors at the talkpage come to an agreement on how to proceed; or (2) A consensus is developed through some other mechanism (
    dispute resolution noticeboards). Bottom line: Please take this to the article talkpage. --Elonka
    19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I have started two RMs for
      Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer); your input would be most appreciated. Regards, GiantSnowman
      14:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, it'll be nice to get this settled! :) --Elonka 15:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka could you have a look at this 1RR report. It is a very clear case, and yet an editor can come along and close it? Now is it the case that editors can only be blocked for 1RR depending on which Admin you get to review the report? --Domer48_'fenian' 10:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, this was a little

WP:POINTy on your part, but I went ahead and blocked the anon for 24. To answer your question though: Yes, it can absolutely depend on the admin. It's very possible that admins can have reasonable disagreements on how to deal with a particular situation. --Elonka

16:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not directing your attention to the IP, but the report before it. So just that we are clear on it, you can violate 1RR but as to getting blocked for it, well that depends on the Admin who deals with it? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct, admins can, and are expected to, use their own judgment in how to deal with a particular situation, especially in borderline cases. --Elonka 16:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That was not a borderline case. It was a clear 3RR on a 1RR article. Expect to see this on ANI alot, because this is what happened before. Selective application by Admin’s! While I am and was a strong supporter of 1RR I’ll not support being subject to the whims of any Admin. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka in light of your comments here here I think you'll agree that this latest personal attack and assumptions of bad faith by this editor being well aware as they are of your comments above is a bit much. Coupled with their comments here here and here not to mention equally uncivil edit summaries [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14][15][16]it needs to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to block someone today, for something they said a week or a month ago. Please wipe the slate clean, and try to just move forward? --Elonka 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about blocking anyone, I said it needs to be addressed. So no problem on my part with you doing nothing to address it, as long as your going to be consistent. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the Wikidots proposal and our discussion of it have been deleted. Is it possible to get a copy of the whole of the page? Bielle (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) If you don't want it on site any more, my email access is open. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The proposal was certainly yours but about half the commentary I wrote. If you don't want to provide your text, perhaps you would be kind enough to email me a copy of my contributions. I can't seem to find the exchanges in my contributions' list. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If my contributions turn out to be as you have stated, then I doubt I will keep them long. I would like to decide that for myself, though. Email keeps it all still off site. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving copy of text to Bielle's talk for the sake of continuity. Responding there. Bielle (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the DYK for Jim Sanborn created 5000 more hits while Kryptos gained over 20000+. Easy to tell where the interest is focused. Maybe Kryptos would be better focus for start-> GA -> FA nomination. Also appears to be quite abit more information availible. I am unfortunately having great difficulty abtaining information on his background. He seems not to share much with media, which is his right, but also makes it difficult to write the portions needed for GA. Also I believe more collaberation would be found on the latter article. Any thoughts? Calmer Waters 15:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Kryptos will be the easier sell, and there are many more sources on the sculpture than on Sanborn. There will also be two more articles about Kryptos coming out next month, in the non-fiction anthology Secrets of the Lost Symbol. One will be about the fact & fiction of Kryptos in Brown's The Lost Symbol, and the other will be an interview with Sanborn. --Elonka 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, It wasn't inadvertently. I just thought that was the place. I thought the cases could be followed with more info added.

Now I read that that forum is for incidents and this is more like a systematic behavior.  franklin.vp  03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, I saw that you posted for the first time in a while on the al-Durrah page. I just want to clarify that you're there as an editor, and not as an admin. Given the amount of adminning you did there before, I would personally see you as too involved to continue to be an admin on that page. I mean no disrespect by that, so please don't take it that way. It's just a question of sustained involvement.

As for the page move you commented on, I've posted a poll per WP:RM on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I've never edited the article, nor do I have any intention to do so. I have no opinion on the content or title, but will help out as an admin as I can. --Elonka 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think when one of the main editors of the article—someone you neither took nor threatened admin action against—objects, that's something you ought to respect. That's all I want to say about it for now, as it's currently a moot point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did issue cautions towards you in relation to the al-Durrah article. In any case, your concerns are duly noted; however, per the

case wording, "Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute." --Elonka

01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did you issue a caution to me? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of a gentle one:[17] --Elonka 01:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not a caution, Elonka, just as my note to you here is not a caution. Had you left me a caution over al-Durrah, I'd have taken it to AN/I. Look, I'd prefer not to go through the reasons here that I'm asking you not to take admin action, because it would involve more writing than I'd prefer to do right now, and there's no point in discussing something in depth that hasn't happened. But if you do take admin action, I'll definitely go to AN/I with the reasons. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any administrator's action is of course subject to review and discussion by other uninvolved admins. --Elonka 02:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your responses strongly illustrate the problem, Elonka. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What kind of a response are you looking for? --Elonka 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[18] I ask because I've had ongoing problems with

There's no official list, it's just anything related to the Troubles, and "when in doubt, assume it is related." See

Troubles restriction}} template on the top of the talkpage there. --Elonka

01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If my memory serves, there was an AE clarification at some point after I blocked someone who edited Black and Tans when on probation under the same remedy. The gist if which is that anything that could be reasonably considered as related (even historically so, before the Troubles began) and was plagued by the same issues, could be placed under the remedy by an uninvolved admin. I wouldn't suggest doing it yourself, though, Malleus, given you have edited it recent. Perhaps a quick note at AE would be sufficient to get the attention of another admin. Rockpocket 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No thread at AE is needed. The wording is, "When in doubt, assume it is related." --Elonka 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, someone is going to have to add the template and make the other editors aware of the editing sanction. We can't exactly tolerate editors going past 1RR one day then suddenly sanction someone the next. It seems prudent that the person doing that job is uninvolved. Rockpocket 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason there's been no recent disruption is because the page was protected for a while after the most recent outbreak, and nobody, myself included, has gone back to it since. I'm going to do as Elonka suggests, and tag the article. Don't see the need for AE, it's a clear-cut case. --

Fatuorum

02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for the advice Elonka. --

Fatuorum

02:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't check the history and thus incorrectly assumed it was current, rather than latent, problems you were referring to. I think I may add it to black and tans too, on a similar basis. Rockpocket 03:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

helping clean up the List of sculptors. red ink in those sorts of places is like a red flag to this bull and it is nice to run into other bulls every now and then. Carptrash (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, agreed. Those redlinks on lists tend to cause an immediate kneejerk cleanup response on my part, as well. --Elonka 16:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice here that you are an admin, so perhaps you can help me. I uploaded two maps, really the same map twice, but the colors that uploaded are NOT what I created in my computer, so they should be made to go away. They are File:Pre-historic Pueblo lands.jpg and File:Pueblo lands.jpg. They are and always will be orphans, and I'll continue trying to create the map in want and need. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to notify you.. I've taken the whole Domer and VK thing over to ANI, to try to get this settled before it REALLY gets out of hand. [19] is the link :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd been watching, but thanks for the notification anyway.  :) I do have to admit to being a bit perplexed as to why an ANI thread is needed, since it seems pretty straightforward to me: Domer48 was disruptive, I placed him under probation. Also, it's hard to say how there could be bias on my part, since I put one editor from each "side" on probation at exactly the same time: Domer48 and Mooretwin. Concerning Domer's claim that he's going to ignore the probation, I tend to just ignore that as fist-shaking. Because though he's been saying that he's not going to abide by it (or by the previous page ban placed by Angus), actions speak louder than words, and his behavior does appear to be respecting the newest restrictions. Anyway, if he violates the probation, he runs the risk of being blocked, by me or any other uninvolved administrator who wants to help out with arbitration enforcement. I do understand though that this is a highly volatile area, and that emotions run deep (generationally deep) on some of these issues. Since I'm a new admin on the scene, I'm still coming up to speed on the backstory. So if you feel that an ANI thread is appropriate, I'll trust your judgment. --Elonka 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

I think you have now earned this Elonka. Keep up the good work you are doing.

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For helping enforce good editor behavior at Troubles-related articles. John (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello again... I do believe our friend is back, but this time has decided to do his editing as an IP... it's the same 67.16x that he had used before... could you do something about this? Thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you point me at more of the information which makes you think this is the same person? Sorry, I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I just work on a lot of different articles, and don't remember the details of all of them. For example, when you say "the same 67.16x", can you point me at the other IP he was using? Also, is there a

sockpuppet investigation page where this information is being gathered? Thanks, --Elonka

01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous username was

WP:NSONGS (I did not make it a redirect), and has already made one stab at me, although not as uncivil as he has been in the past, makes me say that this is obviously Chao19... - Adolphus79 (talk

) 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, as you appear to be engaged in a "clean-up" of beheaviour on these articles I think, in fairness to the whole Irish editing community you should share your view of what a "troubles-related" article is. Most of us were under the impression that "the troubles" occurred half a century after the

btw; this question is to you Elonka, not John or Rock who tend to pop up everywhere I do. It is your definition we need to understand before we test it for compliance with Arbcom's ruling. Sarah777 (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I first asked this question last night. Now I see that at 04:28, 12 November 2009 you made a proposal at ANI - without notifying anyone - that would effectively do away with the need for you to explain yourself! Nice. Sarah777 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, did you take VK's explanation of the phrase "cop onto yourself" as a chance to piggyback an insult onto Domer's incivility, or as a humorous explanation of the implications of the expression? If you didn't take it as a PA, then I don't want to move forward under the assumption that it was one. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would rate the language as qualifying as a personal attack, yes. And, as I know now, it wasn't even a proper definition of the "cop onto yourself" phrase, which is probably better defined as "Get a grip onto yourself" or "Get ahold of yourself", from the old English "cop" meaning to take or seize. --Elonka 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And if it is Jdorney has now reverted twice in one day another clear breach of 1RR. Having only recently been blocked for 1 week for same. BigDunc 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another snafu. Elonka had replied on my page - I missed it in the blizzard of messages. My bad. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, myself and JD have differences but I'm not going to support egging someone to block him! He's NOT good at spotting "slant" but he does know his history. Credit where it's due :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with getting anyone one blocked, I have said it numerous times I don't want anyone blocked, even Rock, ;) BigDunc 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have heard it mentioned the spirit of 1RR could you check out here, Irvine is just back from his second block in 2 weeks and is straight in with very controversial edits. Which have all been reverted. BigDunc 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to have a look at this user continued disruption be it in articles or edit summaries, you have warned users about probation and you have blocked others, you might have missed this post so I am asking again could you please look into this thank you. BigDunc 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll take a look. --Elonka 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Shell_Kinney is on wikibreak, is the ban considered dropped? Or is there another avenue that this should be taken to, or should it just be dropped? DigitalC (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a diff of what she said exactly? --Elonka 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

diff DigitalC (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience that QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is banned from all topics related to Chiropractic for 6 months, starting in August 2009. This ban is still valid, regardless of whether or not Shell Kinney is active on-wiki. Can you give me diffs of what you think are the violations of this ban? --Elonka 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• diff - QuackGuru edits
  D.D. Palmer, the founder of Chiropractic, below "He founded the field of chiropractic
  ..." and directly below a reference tag containing "History of Chiropractic • Carl Cleveland, Jul '52".
• diff - QuackGuru adds information to a section of
  Vaccine controversy
  , adding information directly after a sentence that mentions Chiropractic.

From my reading of the ban, s/he was to be banned from "any topics dealing with Chiropractic", and the above topics obviously dealt with Chiropractic.

DigitalC (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• diff - while this edit is uncontroversial, QuackGuru is supposed to not be editing these pages at all. This article
  Trick or Treatment
  is about a book that "evaluates the scientific evidence for acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine, and chiropractic".
• diff - is one of QuackGuru's several edits to Naturopathy. This edit is again below a sentence mentioning chiropractic. The article itself should probably be a no-gone zone, as it has several mentions of Chiropractic in it.

DigitalC (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• diff - QuckGuru's ban specifically mentioned QuackWatch. Here is another edit of him editing the article of a book examining Chiropractic, and adding a link to a review hosted at QuackWatch. The book review that he added again specifically mentions Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Unfortunately, I won't have time to read these in detail... I recommend that you open a thread at
  WP:AE with this information, and see what others think. --Elonka
  22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor was warned about the probation but has decided to delete properly sourced text here and here after returning from a wikibreak. The editor has a possible COI. What avenue should be taken? QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of the ban which Shell Kinney may have imposed. However, if there are concerns that an ArbCom-related ban may have been violated, then the proper venue to bring this up would be at

WP:AE. --Elonka

21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I thought your Troubles discretionary sanctions proposal was quite good, and needed to avoid Troubles II. So I've asked at User_talk:Seraphimblade#Troubles whether the community might re-continue that discussion (somewhere?). It probably isnt an "incident" any longer, but the next incident is likely just around the corner. I've also asked for thoughts from Sarah[20]. If you cant find community support, please bring it to arbcom to consider. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 05:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have filed at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: The Troubles. --Elonka

04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How is any article, once determined by an admin. as 'Troubles related', to be de-listed? The particular article I have in mind is Irish Bulletin. The disruptive editor has been banned. How long more is 1 revert per 24 hrs. supposed to apply to everyone editing on this page? RashersTierney (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no de-listing, it's just permanent. Per community consensus, all Troubles-related articles are under 1RR. However, the restriction does not apply when reverting vandalism, or reverting edits made by anonymous IPs. --Elonka 21:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that is reasonable and sustainable? RashersTierney (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The community consensus for it in October 2008 was quite strong,[21] so yes. --Elonka 21:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've edited here for some time now on many Ireland-related articles. I've never come across this restriction before, or if I did, just moved on because the editing rather than the topic was inflammatory. 'Troubles-related' might sometimes just be a hammer to crack some nuts. Or it might just be nuts. RashersTierney (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the stark warning at Irish Bulletin. Please don't reapply an unnecessary restriction. RashersTierney (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the template is there, is irrelevant. The 1RR restriction is still in effect. --Elonka 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should not be. RashersTierney (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support the firm but fair line you are taking. --John (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The firm but fair line who is taking? RashersTierney (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, whose talk page this is. --John (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What possible benefit to the project is that restriction having at Irish Bulletin? RashersTierney (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's keeping nationalists (of either stripe) from ruining the article, which in my view is a good thing. --John (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on what evidence exactly do you come to that conclusion? There was only ever one problematic editor there, who has since been banned as a sock (and the restriction had no bearing on his/her 'outing'). The 1 revert restriction and the intimidating warning are unnecessary and potentially discouraging positive contributions. RashersTierney (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it is keeping British Nationalism in check; except in relation to a number of Irish articles. Perhaps we should explore the problem of British nationalism more widely - I see it all over British articles, like a plague. Even in the title of some roads articles. As British Nationalism is a vastly greater problem, far greater than any other nationalism bar American Nationalism I am concerned that the Elephants in the room are being ignored while minor problems like alleged Irish or Balkan nationalism attracts all the draconian action. Something very rotten in the state of Wiki? Sarah777 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. If you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in this page. --John (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta John. I've not only seen that page I've nearly memorised it :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't...I'm based in London, England and took the photo on a visit to New York in February. However, there are staff based in the office in the cemetery itself who are quite helpful and they may be able to help you. Jack1956 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know i have made a post on the Admins noticeboard about the BNP being considered an articles related to the troubles here. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I commend ya, Elonka, on your cool headedness. Those Troubles articles are really a headache, at times; doubly so for administrators. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Classic example of how clampdowns can degenerate into intimidation (as viewed by non-Admins). Where is the edit-warring that merits 1RR in this article? Was it the mere presence of Domer? If I decide to edit English historical articles will we have 1RR tags slapped on them just 'cos of my presence? If you can promise me that I'll get cracking straight away, starting with the Battle of Hastings and working my way up to the war in Afghanistan. Sarah777 (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And if we go by the definition of "troubles-related" supplied by Angus then Irish Bulletin does not come under the Arbcom ruling at all. So any block based on an imagined Arbcom sanction would be a bad block which would mean the blocker would no longer be suitable to be involved in "troubles-related" articles. Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, you did an excellent job in identifying and stopping the 'gaming' IP at this article, and perhaps I should have thanked you for your extensive efforts before this, but I was always perplexed at the tagging of this article as 'Troubles-related'. My reservations on extending Admin. powers in this area are not due in any way to doubts about your good intentions or integrity. Just thought you should know. RashersTierney (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have stricken my last comment. I hope that is sufficient. Thanks for your note. ---