User talk:Elonka/Archive 41

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated inthe 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A request for references was posted two and a half years ago, I was wondering if the current references on this page justify removing the request or if I should try to find some myself?Reesrodgers (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the sources, and most of them seem to be blogs or press releases. Could we find some solid published sources somewhere? --Elonka 13:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can do.Reesrodgers (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have edited this page and added references from billboard (music chart and info site), mtv (US music television and news), and jpop (a japanese pop magazine). I hope that this will satisfy the requirement for removal of request. If not let me know.Reesrodgers (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the work! I've gone ahead and removed the tag. If you'd like to find other sources, I'd recommend searching at http://news.google.com on "116 Clique". It may not find anything on the first search, but if you then click on "Archives" in the left column, you can often find some interesting hits. --Elonka 03:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will check that out. I have been finding my source material by regular google search and it is long and tiring work, Thank you for the hint, I think my research may go faster doing it that way. I should be able to cut out some of the less desirable search results.Reesrodgers (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you check {{

EBSCOhost. --Elonka

05:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, "off" is a preposition (of five letters or less) and thus should not be capitalised per WP:CAPS. Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about grammar, it's about how third-party sources spell the name. I have started a thread at the talkpage of "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" and will be filing a move request soon. --Elonka 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you, though you might want to read this move. Best, --Discographer (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read that discussion from 2008, but think it's worth bringing up again, considering that most reliable sources are capitalizing the term.[1] --Elonka 15:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, now in America, they're known as backup singers, however, throughout most of the rest of the world, they are known as backing vocalists. This subject can be quite complicating, as that in the past, it was up to the major record labels to keep records on the names of the songs that these backing vocalists appeared on. Back in the 1960s, Motown's main backing vocalists were a trio called The Andantes. These girls sang on roughly around somewhere in-between 10,000 to 20,000 songs, now that's a lot! However, Motown never kept any records on this, which is so very unfortunate. A book was even released about them, but that left very little detail. It was (still is) my hope to get a complete listing done on all the singles that were ever released by them. Regarding this same subject matter, there's just not very much though that I can help you with. If the information can't be found under the artist's name or their record label, then it's very extremely difficult - and even frustrating - in trying to find anything out about them. I'm soo sorry I really can't help you out here. If I ever find something out, I'll let you know! Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, at least it's somewhat comforting to know that I'm not the only one with this problem! I was wondering if there was some massive online database somewhere that I was just missing, but it looks like, unfortunately, there's no such database. --Elonka 17:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was the article entitled Death of Caylee Anthony semi-protected? The user who did this is only identified by a number and no information is given about that editor. Also, I thought that I was "auto-confirmed". I am not a frequent user, as you may know, and do not know the answers to these questions. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Mugginsx (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and replied at the talkpage. --Elonka 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid reply - you are terrific as always! Mugginsx (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the bio photo added to Richard Bartle, Elonka! I hadn't been able to find anything I knew how to arrange to be usable. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help! It took several emails back and forth with Bartle and the photographer, but now we've got two good pics at the Commons which we can use.  :) --Elonka 15:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Carolmooredc is disrupting the article Death of Caylee Anthony. This editor has been previously blocked for three months by Administrator SarekOfVulcan for WP:HARASS on another article and I guess she behaved for awhile but is back at it again, this time on this article. She started off first suggesting then "threatening" to go ahead anyway and re-structer the article without first asking for consensus. She is removing perfectly good referencing with hers saying they are "better" when, in fact they are newspaper references against actual police taped interviews. She was quite for awhile and now, completely out of the blue, she is posting a 3RR warning - when NO EDITOR has been challenging her (most bizarre). None of these edits involve me and you will see that other editors are just as baffled as myself. She needs a tough but fair administrator, I believe that is you! Please help us. Mugginsx (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a Wiki/legal BLP violation from the article page. It was a paragraph which contained slanted newpaper reports about testimony given at the trial. They are inaccurate. If we repeat them, and the subject choose to sue (being accused of knowledge of a crime and coverup) we are vunerable. I am a paralegal and watched the testimony and the judge telling the jury to ignore Krystal Holloway's testimony because she told two different stories. I tried and tried to explain to Carolmooredc but she will not listen. I do not like to fight or edit war. She, apparently does. She has now threatened me. Mugginsx (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been resolved. Mugginsx (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee,

As a member of WikiProject St. Louis, can you help out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject St. Louis#St. Louis Post-Dispatch and St. Louis Globe-Democrat? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Voivodeships of Poland. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lung Salad, hi, I appreciate a lot of the work that you're doing on the Templar articles. However, when a dispute arises, it is very important to ensure that you are working with other editors to achieve consensus. Right now, there is not a consensus that the term "Neo Templar" is a "common" one. If you disagree, you are welcome and encouraged to engage in discussion on this, at the appropriate talkpages. In the meantime, the article should reflect the consensus, until and unless consensus changes. Thanks, --Elonka 14:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to bring Wikipedia up-to-date on this one, you only need to hit Googlebooks to realise that the term Neo-Templar applied to New Templars is the universal and accepted norm. Lung salad (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a universal term, and for one editor to start edit-warring against others, is usually a red flag. Please engage in discussion at Talk:Knights Templar, don't just edit war, thanks. --Elonka 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It has become a universal term decades ago, true you won't find it used during the 18th century during the period of AE Waite and Albert Mackey - but it was appropriated into the English language following the French usage Néo-Templiers that simply means "New Templars" - see Talk Page.Lung salad (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read many sources about the

Featured status. Which doesn't mean that I own the article, but it does mean that I am very very familiar with a wide variety of sources on the topic. Regarding the term "Neo-Templar", I do not share your opinion that it is a universal term. It is most definitely not in common usage in all of the major academic works. I do see that the term is used in some books, but I would not go so far as to say that it is in "common use" or a "universal term". Since there is disagreement though, what would be helpful here, would be for you to engage in collegial discussion about the matter at Talk:Knights Templar, and we'll see if we can find a workable compromise? --Elonka

15:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elonka I'm a new editor, I'm trying to work out how it all works. I've just edited Pleaching last few weeks. I put up pleaching as a name for the tree shaping article. On the pleaching article I removed a photo of topiary and replaced it with a pleaching by Axel Erlandson. I have a good ref for it. So I put up one of Axel's trees. Martin Hogbin removed it and told me not to fight. I reverted and said I would put up refs once I worked out how. I put up two. Martin didn't even ask what the refs said, he just removed them and the photo and strongly suggested I go away at Talk:Pleaching. Is this normal behavior from Wikipedia editors? ?oygul (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi ?oygul, thanks for asking. There have actually been many disputes about article naming in this topic area, so things work a bit differently than in other parts of the project. There is more administrator supervision, and editors are all cautioned to be on their best behavior, to avoid having their access restricted. My advice is to proceed very slowly and cautiously. If a disagreement comes up, instead of reverting, start a discussion at the talkpage, and try to get the opinions of other editors. If everyone listens carefully to each other, and works together to try and find a compromise, the article will usually be stronger as a result. See also

WP:DR and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping#Remedies, especially the part about Discretionary Sanctions. I hope that helps explain? If you have any questions, let me know! --Elonka

22:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elonka Have you looked at Martins edits on Pleaching? please help.?oygul (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings ?oygul, please realize that your arrival at this moment with only a few edits along with the fact that there has been a long running debate, raises some questions. Have you edited the "tree shaping" article under a different account name in the past ? Are you or do you know any of the people mentioned in the article ? Are you connected to the subject in anyway ? No offence, just curious. Slowart (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No and no Slowart.?oygul (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How can one undo be edit warring? Martin undid my edits twice and brushed off the refs and accused me of "added only to prov a point regarding 'Tree shaping'." (edit summary) Martin also accused me of arguing just because I added one image to pleaching, and I suggested merging tree shaping to pleaching. I then come to you for advice. I feel that it is very unfair to give me a formal warning and not Martin when Martin had done twice the undoes, didn't discuss the refs and seems to be very confrontational about pleaching. ?oygul (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The formal notification was to ensure that you were aware of the arbitration case. As Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) was already a participant in that case, he does not need to be notified again about it. --Elonka 16:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, you did not just make me aware of the situation, you gave me a formal warning "Please consider this a formal warning" (your wording). In point of fact you said nothing to Martin about the situation at pleaching. If your reasoning was my behavior deserved a formal warning then Martin should also receive a formal warning due to his behavior at pleaching. (I've already listed his behavior above.) As Martin seems to be an experienced editor and you state he is already aware of the arbitration. He should have known better, and all the more reason to have given him a formal warning not less of a reason to do so. Please retract your formal warning from my talk page or be neutral and give Martin one as well. ?oygul (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The best thing you could do right now, would be to engage in civil and collegial discussion at Talk:Pleaching. --Elonka 14:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have put an introduction in the above article as the banner asked for pr

TITLE CHANGE: Understood as per your instructions to request formal move next time at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There was no movement (except for my editing) on this article for since September 2010 and since there was no information on anything but Knights Templar in France, I thought the title more appropriate. Did not know I had to go through a formal request. Is not specific in Wikipedia:Requested moves for auto-confirmed users and did not think any editors interested in this article because of the lack of edits since September 2010, except for my own. Is this on all articles, or just Knights Templar articles? Mugginsx (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's general policy on all articles, that if there's a chance that the move might be controversial, to check for consensus first. In the case of an article where there have been no edits for awhile, best is to suggest a move on the talkpage. If no one replies within a few days, it's reasonable to go ahead with the move. There are exceptions, for example if there's only one person who's ever really edited the article, it's probably okay for them to move it around. But as soon as it's the case where multiple editors have worked on an article, it's a good idea to check before moving it. --Elonka 04:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Will do that in future. Now that you have become interested in editing the article again your might take a look, I think you will find that some new edits inserted are incorrect according to the source I originally gave, so I removed the source. One or two are historically and factually incorrect. Removed them or removed my source from that section. Why Geoffroi de Charney was taken out of the lead is beyond me - well-known from all medieval accounts so I put it back in. As to the Tone tag - it is beyond my comprehension. Mugginsx (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For more info, try reading

Wikipedia Manual of Style. --Elonka

15:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will check it out. As I said before, until four days ago, no other editors had touched this page since September 2010. Also I noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead#Citations Subsection Citation it states the lead should be referenced. The citation needed tag has been taken out. Mugginsx (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to fail the article at this time. For comments, please see: Talk:David Lucas (composer)/GA1. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 00:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Elonka. I want to apologize for failing this article. After I had reviewed the article, I was contemplating on putting it on hold or to fail it. In my opinion, I did not think all of the issues could be addressed in seven days. However, I do now realize that I need to ask any nominator if they can fix these mistakes within the seven day time period. I will re-open the nomination and give you the general time period of seven days to address these issues. Sorry for the inconvenience. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 03:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate your time! --Elonka 03:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Since all issues have been addressed, I have passed this article. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks so much.  :) --Elonka 19:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, what is your opinion of what has just happened to the RfM? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We are trying to do exactly what you suggest yet an involved admin, who took part in the and workshop phase, is purposely hindering our attempts. Colincbn (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have left a comment on SilkTork's talkpage. I'm curious though, do you see SilkTork as involved? I looked through the arb case and didn't see much info there, so couldn't tell if his/her participation was as an editor, or as an uninvolved admin. --Elonka 03:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes he has been involved in this same discussion on this article previously but that was not my real point. I tried to set up a proper and civil discussion based on what reliable sources say about the subject at [2]. There seemed to be a clear consensus for 'arborsculpture' and I proposed a page move but agreed to your request for a RfM. This resulted objections the editor who originally made the, still unexplained, move and ?oygul. Within a very short time SilkTork closed the discussion as 'No action'. I would ask that a genuinely uninvolved editor who is willing to take the time and trouble to follow the full discussion on this subject should close this RfM. I suggest either yourself of someone who you know would fit the bill. There is some serious system gaming going on here and it would be nice to have someone around who could see through it.

The way this disagreement should be settled is in accordance with WP policy and by a proper discussion of what the sources say on the subject. This is undoubtedly what Arbcom wanted.

Perhaps you could also have a look at the sockpuppet investigation of the new editor ?oygul. The investigation was quickly closed after a possible connection between Sydney Bluegum and ?oygul was found. From the writing style it seems more likely to me that ?oygul is strongly connected to Blackash. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, could you please provide some links? --Elonka 13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The investigation has already been closed and archived at [3]

Regarding Blackash, look at the latest comment from ?oygul. The style of English, the knowledge about the subject and the talk history, the style of indenting, and the ambiguous quotation, are all very similar features to those of Blackash. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, though a couple specific diffs would be helpful. Also, was Blackash ever making charges of censorship? Or is that a new behavior? --Elonka 13:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it normal practice to edit other editors' comments? I wasn't rude or anything. As you knew that Martin was accusing me of socking it was inappropriate for you to have edited my comment. Please revert your changes and retract your accusation of edit warring on my talk. ?oygul (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You had copy/pasted in a comment, including a signature, that was made in June 2010, which made it look like that editor was commenting in a 2011 discussion. This caused confusion, and indeed another editor tried to "respond" to the older comment. A better practice is to provide a diff to a previous comment, rather than pasting it in wholesale. So I removed the pasted comment, and replaced it with two

Popups, they can simply hover their mouse over the link to see the post. This is a preferable method for many reasons: Less confusion, plus the date and time of the comment can be verified, the location and context of the comment can easily be viewed, and the diff assures that readers are seeing an unedited form of what was said. --Elonka

02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You did weaken ?oygul's post by editing it. Quotations are used all the time in wikipedia discussions, not to mention persuasive writing in general. I see no reason why you should single out ?oygul here. AfD hero (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Review has begun. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Passed GA now thanks to your gathering of those songs! Thanks, keep up the good work Elonka.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks for your help and detailed review. --Elonka 16:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. Take care.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Collect said one of your edits is "showing clear COATRACK problems in BLPs" on an ARBCOM page here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on the page. --Elonka 14:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding user BlueGum: they commented at Talk:Tree_shaping, but the arbcom ruling says they are banned, "broadly construed". This is in contrast to user BlackAsh, which had an exception permitting them to comment once, and reply to questions. I've stricken BlueGum's comments from that Talk page. Normally I wouldn't care, but WP has enough drama already, and when the ArbCom bans users, the idea is to reduce drama by excluding them. Your leniency is laudable, but it is just confusing the Request for Move, and making it harder to find consensus. Or, am I missing something and BlueGum's ban is not that strict? --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the Article and subject scope remedy: "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area." As such, it is my interpretation that all three banned parties: Slowart, Blackash, and Sydney Bluegum, are allowed to make a single statement in the RM. --Elonka 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Elonka I believe you are missing the Article and subject scope remedy section.

"Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area."

Nowhere in the above does it say "parties are allowed to vote and/or give their opinions on the proposals of others". At the beginning of this discussion (after ArbCom) a section for proposals was made and everyone was invited to give theirs. I did, Martin did, even ?oyogul did. Slowart and Blackash did not. That was the commencement of the discussion, it is a place to outlay proposals and background rationale, and it is a place where questions can be asked and answered. The ArbCom result does not, in any way, say they can take part in all parts of the discussion, in every RfC, in every RfM etc. like you are claiming it does.

In addition SydneyBluegum is banned from every aspect of the article, not just the name, and he is not an expert he himself has said he just started doing this a few months ago and learned everything he knows from reading Blackash's webpage. The person he was banned for advocating for.

I really think you are misinterpreting this ruling, and I would like to know what the proper channels for bringing this to the attention of ArbCom for a more clear and definite rewording of the ruling are. Colincbn (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My advice is to wait a day or so and see if arbitrator Casliber or anyone else comments. I truly have no preference on how the article is titled, and am simply doing my best to interpret the ArbCom ruling, so I am completely open to engaging in a good faith discussion with other uninvolved administrators about how to proceed. If you really wish to appeal my decision though, you could start a thread at

the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, or possibly file a Request for Clarification. Both of those mechanisms could take awhile though, which is why it might be better to simply wait and see what Casliber says. --Elonka

03:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that

the arbitration enforcement noticeboard should only be used if I think you, or someone else, was purposely violating the ruling, and I don't see that as the case. I see this as the ruling being ambiguous and thereby causing disagreements as to its meaning. Me, Noleander, and Martin simply interpret the ruling differently than you, so a Request for Clarification makes more sense. Colincbn (talk

) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that arbitrator John Vandenberg has commented now,[4][5] so hopefully that puts the matter to rest? --Elonka 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn There is a lot of discussion where Sydney bluegum states they had read Richard Reames book how to grow a chair. It was in early 2000. Then in 2005 they brought Richard Reames second book arborsculputre. Colincbn you where there on the discussion along with Martin, Duff, Blackash and Slowart when Sydney bluegum stated they grew one of Richard Reames tool handles, it went something like. I grew, I harvested and dried it, when I used it the head fell off. Then Sydney bluegum stated, bark is soft and wood shrinks when it dries. Blackash commented something like, yes you are correct. I don’t recall reading Sydney bluegum stating anywhere that they “learned everything” from Blackash’s webpage. Maybe the comment was made on a unlinked page from tree shaping. Colincbn could you please give a link to the discussion. ?oygul (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to remind you, it's getting to be that time of year. Your very own day is coming up in just one week! What will you do to celebrate? (And doesn't 2007 seem like just yesterday?) – Quadell (talk)

Elonka, I've made my statement at the RFM of Tree shaping. With Martin Hogbin's latest listing of socking I'm now feeling harassed by Martin, this is just the last straw in a long line. After the RFM is finished, I would like to file a compliant against Martin were would I go to do so? Blackash have a chat 07:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how the RM goes, and then if you still have concerns after that, send me an email? --Elonka 02:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!
	Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk ) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making David Lucas (composer) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Heh, I didn't notice the picture until just now. Nice choice! --Elonka 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Elonka,

I was wondering where you got the print circulation numbers of the Journal of World History of 2007 from (which are now replaced by the 2008 numbers and thus are no longer visible in the article)? I was thinking of using them for a Dutch article on the journal and wanted to know if the same source supplied numbers of other years. --Cruon (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that was four years ago, so I'm not sure, except that it was certainly from one of the links that I added in the info box. Usually I get that kind of information from checking a journal's "advertising info" page, because they often list circulation numbers that are of interest to potential advertisers. However, I see that link is currently dead on the JWH website. I did find something similar here, on the Hawaii site.[6] Does that help? --Elonka 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Linda November a certified "Good Article"! (Pictured: cat's silently humming the Meow-Mix theme.) Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

LOL! Thanks.  :) --Elonka 00:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I need an unrelated reviewer to GA review Adar oilfield. If you don't have time no worries but let me know.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Elonka. You have new messages at Blackash's talk page.
Message added 01:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

So what questions am I allowed to ask? Do you not see this as favoritism? ?oygul has asked Blackash what her feelings on other's posts are and that has garnered no warnings, yet I am not only warned but my thread is deleted when I do the same thing for Slowart. I am not under any sanctions while Blackash is (nor have I ever been under any). You have said that you are in email contact with her, perhaps you are too close to the issue now? Also censoring my thread seems extremely heavy handed. Blackash and Slowart (and most probably ?oygul) have been directly violating an ArbCom ruling yet you have never even hinted at enforcing the ban that is already in place yet you threaten me with banning? What is an honest editor to do? Colincbn (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think if you check ?oygul's talkpage, you will see that there have indeed been warnings, and at least one of ?oygul's posts has been edited. As for which questions you are allowed to ask, ArbCom's ruling was: "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area." If you have a specific query related to their expertise in the topic area, you are allowed to ask. But a query like, "I herby ask Slowart his veiws on every post made by Blackash,"[7] is not specific. --Elonka 04:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You are of course correct. And I had refrained from asking him any questions until now because I don't think the ruling is intended to allow questions to specifically address comments made by third parties like ?oygul is doing. The point of the topic ban was to ban them from the topic. I made that post as an attempt to prove a point and as such I can see that it was wrong to do it. But can't you understand the frustration being caused by seeing the ArbCom ruling ignored? Especially after over a year of this exact kind of behaviour? The ruling was supposed to allow non-commercial editors to discuss the issue without interference from those with commercial interests. This is obviously not the case as all three banned editors are taking part just as they always have.

I have always tried base my edits squarely of policy (note: this is why I do not support Arbo as the title). Yeah, I can get frustrated and upset just like anyone else, and I should not have edited out of that frustration, but I still think my actions have at least been understandable. I certainly don't deserve to be threatened with banning. Also as I pointed out you are having conversations with Blackash privately. This is in contrary to the open nature of WP, and now that you are threatening editors opposed to her participation, while also allowing her a very broad interpretation of her topic ban, I hope you can see why it is at least a little upsetting to the one being threatened. Colincbn (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Blackash wrote to me on August 14th, asking if it was okay to post. My reply, on that date, was, "Per the ArbCom ruling, a single statement should be fine. I'd recommend keeping it to no more than 500 words, and then if there were queries about the statement, you could make specific replies." To my knowledge, we have had no other off-wiki communications since then. Everything else has been on-wiki. --Elonka 05:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note I have asked for clarification of the ArbCom ruling

here. I just don't think the current situation is in keeping with the intent of the ruling. Also in your dealings with Blackash and ?oygul you have been very conciliatory, while with me you quickly struck my thread and threatened banning. I do not think that was fair. Even when you have edited their posts you have simply moved or reworded sections with no direct threats, in-spite of Blackash already being topic banned (although what she is exactly topic banned from is beyond me). My points were completely valid, and I have taken them up the ladder. I understand you are only trying to do what you think is right, I just think you have taken a very negative stance towards me for bringing up perfectly legitimate concerns. I do accept that I should have worded my post to be less confrontational, but the point still stands. Colincbn (talk

) 06:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a statement in the Request, and in the new SPI. --Elonka 06:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part. Also, I just wanted to point out that I don't think Blackash has done anything wrong. That is why I did not make a request for enforcement or anything like that. I just think as it is worded the ruling specifically spells out what is allowed, and the current situation is not that. If ArbCom amends the ruling I would have no problem with the way you are interpreting it. Colincbn (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I object to the recent addition of links [8] by Blackash without acknowledgement that they are SPA's and were solicited by blackash who admitted here [9]to canvassing for those opinions from a mailing list. Slowart (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slowart. I read through the comments that Blackash diffed. They were posted by Gourds1 (talk · contribs) and MarkPrimack (talk · contribs) in a January 2009 discussion. Yes, they were single-purpose accounts, and were apparently canvassed back in 2009 to come to the discussion. However, I am not seeing a problem with Blackash providing diffs of the comments in her current reply, as the comments appear relevant to her statement. --Elonka 04:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with providing diffs so long as they are not confused with reliable sources. The comment to which Blackash was responding by providing the diffs was my comment that, rather than giving a view on what reliable sources say on the subject, she was giving her own opinion on what she claimed the opinion of other people was. Providing diffs does not change this. A comment in WP by a person with a particular user name is not a reliable source. In fact, if you look into the matter, you will see that there is some confusion as to who some of these quoted users actually are. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks, just needed reassurance that you understood that they were single-purpose accounts, and were canvassed for this discussion. Slowart (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Slowart, thanks for understanding. Martin, as I haven't read the archives, could you give me a summary? Were there valid concerns that Gourds1 and MarkPrimack weren't who they said they were? --Elonka 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, I believe that there was some doubt about MarkPrimack but I would have to check through the history. Slowart may remember exactly where the problem lies but my point was more general that that. WP talk page edits are not reliable sources, I presume that you agree with that, anyone can register under any unused user name and write whatever they like.

The problem is that, to someone looking through the discussion, it may look as though Blackash has reliable sources to support her claim that some practitioners of the art did not like the name 'arborsculpture, whereas, in fact, she does not have such sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, would you like me to phrase this as a direct question to Slowart so that he can respond if he has any diffs that might elucidate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be better, yes. Either in the RM, or perhaps in the RfC somewhere. --Elonka 17:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No need now. Have a look at this diff [10] and this one [11] from very shortly after the page was moved, then this one [12]] especially the second para. Will the real Mark Primack stand up please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good sleuthing. My guess is that they're all the same person, as it's not uncommon for infrequent editors to forget their older account name or password, and just create a new name. So Primack (talk · contribs) (April 13, 2007), MPrimack (talk · contribs) (April 29 - May 19, 2007), and MarkPrimack (talk · contribs) (2009-2010) are all plausibly the same person. As long as only one account is used at a time, it's potentially okay, unless someone is getting blocked or something and then creating a new account to try and avoid scrutiny. That the dates never overlap, means that it's probably not a problem -- If someone were using multiple accounts in the same discussion though (especially in a poll format such as an RM), then that's something that would need to be addressed. --Elonka 19:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the second para of the last diff? Here MarkPrimack claims that this is the first time he has edited WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I might be willing to believe that he'd simply forgotten that he'd posted two years earlier (for myself, I would be hard-pressed to name every site I posted a message on two years ago!), but you're right, it does raise a question. What about the rest of the content in his posts? Are they consistent, from one to the next, or does it look like he suddenly changed course at some point? --Elonka 21:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence in the second para reads, '. It was recently brought to my attention that my name had been appropriated on this page in the past, and that is what compels me now to clarify my actual opinion on this matter'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As to me contacting our 500 mailing, I addressed this to Slowart in multiple places here on wiki and also addressed it at the Arbitration as Martin brought it up there. [13] Being a new editor I had only done 7 days of editing at Wikipedia or 26 edits at the time. I didn’t know that I shouldn’t have done this. I now know I was wrong to have send it, and wouldn't do this again. But as I stated at the arbitration I'm willing to forward the email to any admin. Please note this was some time before the title was changed (Jan 2009). In point of fact the email I send out happened on the 19th Aug 2008. The email was about the arborsculpture methods. I did have 3 replies to me on email (all replies within a few days actually) one was very pro arborsculpture the other two not much one way or the other. Mark Primack commented on the talk page on the 11 January 2009. Dan Ladd was later again. Realistically would people wait 124 days to comment when asked from an email and not talk about what was asked? Also I far as I'm aware I only have Slowart on my mailing list, not any of the other practitioners. Blackash have a chat 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

diff - Don't you think the user might have done that deliberately so as not to have the comments archived? - User:Cirt - "change date of year to future." -

Ah, good point. --Elonka 16:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

Hi! I wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap if that subject interests you. We hope this channel can serve as a safe haven to hang out, talk about Wiki, brainstorming, women in Wikimedia, article alerts and foster friendships. I hope you join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there!

I found you listed on the campus ambassadors page for the STL region. I'm teaching at St. Charles Community College, and would love to talk with you about how I am using Wikipedia in my classroom. My contact info is on my user page, and I also added a couple of the IMs you listed. --MTHarden (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect fit! I'd be happy to help. Also, we have the upcoming Wikipedia Loves Library event, which will be held in St. Charles at the Kathryn Linnemann library on October 15th, so you might want to pass that info along to your students. See

WP:WLL and Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Louis. --Elonka

15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

On my talk page you gave me a formal warning for adversarial language and edit warring. I accept the term censorship could be seen as adversarial language, but one revert with refs added, is not edit warring. Please strike the edit warring part out of your comment on my talk page. It is a black mark against me that other editors can point to. ?oygul (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I heard the good news! I know you will be great in your new role as Campus Ambassador. I'm so glad to hear that it all worked out well. I look forward to working with you. And possibly meeting at a Global Education Summit in the future. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I look forward to working with you. :) --Elonka 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Elonka. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(N.B. I also posted this to admins

1. Remove your name from the "uninvolved admin" list, if you do not want to maintain the page

or

1. Update or delete the "Other recent editors" section. I would suggest deleting it, and
2. Delete the "No action by admins" section by User:QuackGuru. This editor has been topic banned for one year, and that section was disruption by him, and
3. Remove "Shell Kinney" from the list of uninvolved admins. I believe she has retired from Wikipedia, and (done by Lifebaka)
4. Include a wikilink for each warning given in the "Editors notified of restrictions" section with the date the notification was given.

Many thanks, --

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I deleted the QuackGuru section and "recent editors" sections. As for the notification section, you're right, it should probably include diffs, but that will take some time. Feel free to help with that if you'd like. --Elonka 05:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw you'd added them at page creation, but couldn't figure out where they'd been notified. Didn't even think about the original case. This is what happens when you try to give up coffee. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the page cleanup and the addition of the table, which is a good idea. --Elonka 14:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The table is the same as the one we use on Sarah Palin, which is on article probation. I just copied it and then it was a matter of integrating the data. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Legend section. First paragraph. Sounds like Wiki/Fringe material. Have commented on the article talk page. Added facts and references for the first owner of shroud. Could use some of your Templar expertise. Mugginsx (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, can I ask you why you allowed Blackash to comment yet again on the Tree shaping naming debate, especially a few hours before it was, rather unexpectedly closed? She was specifically banned from doing this by Arbcom and I understood that you had stuck around to enforce this ban. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not bother to reply here, I have raised the matter on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note the comment Martin is complaining about was about Martin's mistakes/misunderstandings and not about the title. Blackash have a chat 01:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe this would be a good way to find common ground, but instead of the 3 listed could we do it the same way as Afd Hero has, maybe even in the same section? With the Support:, Neutral: and Oppose: This would clearly show which is workable, which is ok and which in not in the running. Blackash have a chat 00:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please show me where Arbcom states I'm not allow to point out where other editors are giving out misinformation about me or other editors' behavior. As this misinformation is being presented to sway how incoming editors view what is happening, editors should be held accountable for their statements. Blackash have a chat 03:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

For one, the Tree shaping article is under discretionary sanctions, which means that any administrator may impose additional sanctions. For another, the article talkpage is not for discussing other editors, it is for discussing the content of the article. --Elonka 04:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Martin, is discussing other editors' editing style all though the talk page. As have some of the other editors. Which distracts for the content discussion. Blackash have a chat 05:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, I would be very interested in your thoughts on the "3 names" poll? :) --Elonka 05:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just read your comment at Tree shaping it hits most of the things that are bogging down discussion, the only thing I feel you missed, was asking all editors to not discuss other editors editing style/behavior or what their motivations are. Earlier I had started a new section just above this one on my thoughts about the poll. In short its a good way to find common ground but I think doing it more like Afd Hero section is clearer. Blackash have a chat 05:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but how about we try it this way first, and see where it leads? --Elonka 05:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

At least 3 listed in order of preference. Correct? The reason I like Afd Hero layout is allows of strength of feeling as well as modified versions. But I'm game, could I add 5 or 6 suggestions in order of preference? Blackash have a chat 06:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as long as there are at least three. --Elonka 06:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, at the poll Colincbn asked me a question. I haven't answered as I believe there should be a subsection to answer questions/discuss titles, so the poll is kept easy for other editors to see where people stand about the titles. What do you think? Blackash have a chat 08:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I just hit an edit conflict while changing the word "removed" to "archived" in my last two posts, thanks for redirecting the links. I should have just mentioned it here but I am so burned out over this this whole thing I did not even think about it. Colincbn (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, there's been a flurry of activity on the page today. BTW, I'd be very interested in your thoughts at the "three names" poll. --Elonka 05:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot participate as I can see only two options that comply with policy. Colincbn (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Per

WP:NAME, many possible titles would apply with policy, if they have a clear consensus behind them. --Elonka

14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a second descriptive phrase option as either "Training" or "Growing" works. While both are still descriptive phrases they are different so I hope this complies with your rules for the poll. Colincbn (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure does, thanks! --Elonka 04:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Elonka. could I please allowed ask Colincbn a question about his use of the word plant? Blackash have a chat 01:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What would you like to ask? --Elonka 01:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, the current interpretation of the Arbcom remedy essentially allows Blackash to talk about anything she wants, and since they upheld that interpretation (and I will abide by that) can we just let her ask me directly without jumping through needless hoops? @Blackash "a direct query": What do you want to know about my use of the word plant? <= Having to do this seems silly. (Also you can both just call me Colin if you want) Colincbn (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What I had wanted to ask you was, In-spite of tree being (by far) the most commonly used term why you feel we should ignore what people/references are using and use plant instead? Colin I feel you have already answered me on my talk. I just put this here in case you wanted to give a different answer to my question. By the way Colin this link [14] you gave, they use lucky bamboo silk tree. Colin you shown me some interesting things and I think we should work together to get this content into the article. If you are interested let talk about it on the tree shaping talk. Blackash have a chat 23:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I will continue this on Blackash's talk if anyone is interested. Colincbn (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elonka!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you!

Done! --Elonka 22:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone welcomed your presence at this Tree shaping RfM as an uninvolved admin who has stuck around to maintain good order in very trying circumstances. I say this even though I may have been on the receiving end of 'advice' from you on occasions. It does sometimes get heated and you are right to point this out and keep the discussion civil and properly directed. Onthe other hand I should point out that three editors were banned by Arbcom from this discussion and yet they seem to have freely participated.

You will note that I have emphasised 'uninvolved' because I think that it is essential that you remain so if you are to retain the respect of participants in this discussion. I therefore think that you must not express opinions concerning the way the discussion should move and particularly you should not have offered this advice to closing admins, Sandstein, just checking, did you get a chance to read the close from the 2010 RM? It had a thoughtful summary from closing admin RegentsPark. This was almost a request to close the RfM with the same result as before. As it happens I and several other editors did not find RegentsPark's summary particularly thoughtful and you should not take sides on the matter.

You now seem to be suggesting that we just make up a name. 'Absurd' may not be the right term to use but it is hard to know what to say when you suggest that we degrade Wikipedia by just making up information because it is convenient.

If you want to join in the naming dispute you are obviously welcome to do so but if you are present to encourage civility you should keep completely out of the dispute itself.

Thanks, and I assure you, I have no opinion on what the article should be titled -- my motivation is to see the ArbCom sanctions enforced, and the dispute resolved. I am, however, curious as to why you have not participated in the

consensus process. So perhaps you could offer options which would be acceptable to you? --Elonka

14:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had put a fairly clear statement in the section. Neither a poll or consensus can decide what something is called, we have to rely on reliable sources we cannot just make up what something is called. Are you seriously suggesting that we should just make up some titles and vote on them, irrespective of whether the subject is actually known by that title? There are many times when a compromise is the best solution, in fact I am advocating just that on another article right now, but this is not one of them. We can, of course vote on names that reliable sources show are actually used in the horticultural community to refer to the subject of the article but potential titles must meet that basic and fundamental criterion of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that as a way forward, all participants should put forth three possible article titles that they could live with. Is it your position that there is only one suitable title for the article, and no other compromise titles are possible? --Elonka 16:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we follow WP policy on the matter.

WP:Name

says, Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus.

This means that any consensus must be between what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. So long as participants put forward titles that are based on what reliable sources call the subject that is fine with me although I would be pushed to find three names that meet that essential criterion, there are remarkably few when you actually look.

Are you suggesting that we should include made-up names in our decision making process? Martin Hogbin (talk)

For the purpose of the naming poll, yes, editors are welcome to suggest a made-up name. The poll is not binding, it is just a way to gather information on where everyone stands, and see if it sparks any new avenues of discussion. It is my strong recommendation that you participate. You personally don't have to make up a name if you don't want to, but it would be very helpful if you could suggest three possible titles that you think you could support. --Elonka 16:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

can you just clarify, are you asking for descriptive phrases that cannot be confused with the the actual name of the subject or are you suggesting that we make up names for the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just three possible titles that you think you could support. You are welcome to include Arborsculpture as one of them if you'd like. You could also look at other titles that have been suggested already. --Elonka 17:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you have not answered my question. Are we allowed to make up a short name, for example 'tree sculpture' that readers might think is the name by which the art is usually known. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. --Elonka 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So is this some sort of game or exercise or are you contemplating the possibility that there could be a consensus to call the article 'tree sculpture' for example? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The poll is not binding, it is just an attempt to gather information. --Elonka 17:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have great difficulty seeing the purpose of this poll. I could easily make up some names for what I think this subject should be called but we could not use any of them because they would not be what, in fact, the subject is called. What is the purpose of us all thinking of names that we cannot actually use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is really this: Are you capable of compromise? If so, then you should be able to suggest a compromise. If an editor

cannot suggest compromises, then it may be time for them to be removed from the discussion, so that other editors who are capable of working towards consensus, can then try to come up with some sort of middle-ground solution. --Elonka

01:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that I might be sanctioned for refusing to make up information to be added to WP? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, that is not what I was intending to say. What I am trying to communicate, is that you seem like an intelligent individual, and I am confident that you can suggest alternatives to "Arborsculpture" which might be acceptable titles. Or is it your feeling that there is only one possible title for the article? --Elonka 21:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The only name actually used in independent reliable sources to refer unambiguously to the subject of the article is 'arborsculpture' and therefore it is the only name that is in line with WP policy and the only name that I can support. This claim may surprise you in the light of the other editors statements and claims but if you are unwilling to discuss the subject because you want to remain uninvolved there is not much more that I can say.

As I suggested at AN, what we need is someone who is prepared to challenge and investigate information presented by editors in order to establish the strength of their arguments. If you do not want to take on this role than perhaps you could help find someone who would. I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong but I am not willing to invent information to be included in WP that I know to be factually incorrect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making your position clear. It is my hope, however, that you will reconsider it, and be open to potential compromises. Wikipedia is a communal project, and as such, it is important that when there is a dispute, editors be able to work together to craft mutually agreeable solutions. See also

WP:DBF. --Elonka

22:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my position, it is what every policy of WP says, we cannot make up information and add it to WP as if it were fact. Perhaps you could make your position clear. I have made up the term 'Tree sculpture' which, to the best of my knowledge has never been used to describe the subject of the article. Are you suggesting that there could be a consensus to use this name as the title of the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you should suggest compromises, and that if you cannot even fathom the idea of a valid compromise, that it may be time for you to be removed from the discussion. --Elonka 15:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to be making vague and very improper threats to sanction me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, there is no need to threaten me yet again. I can perfectly well see that the RfC has been closed and therefore realise that argung for a move to 'arborsculpture' is currently pointless.

The close was against a clear majority with no justification being given. I cannot see how the decision in accordance with the Arbcom decision, 'The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus'[my bold]. Every single outsider supported the move.

I will never support making up information to add to WP which is what you seem to have advocated above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RMs are not closed by "majority rules", but by judging the strength of the arguments, and then making a determination as to whether or not consensus has been achieved. See

WP:RMCI. As for your claim that there was no justification, this is not accurate. NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) did post a detailed justification here,[15] and again at the close.[16] --Elonka

21:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how the superficial argument given justifies overruling all five independent editors who supported the move or the 2/3 overall majority to move. Admins have access to special tools in order to carry out community wishes they are not meant to be supereditors with the power to make decisions independently and without even understanding the arguments put by the participants, not just me but also seven others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think the decision was superficial, you need to spend more time at RM. The Tree shaping move discussion, and the subsequent discussion among administrators on how to close it, was one of the most detailed and in-depth move discussions I have ever seen on the project. The RM lasted several weeks, when the vast majority of RMs are closed within a week. The closing took a long time as well, with multiple administrators weighing in with their opinion. This is far, far more attention than most RMs get. Ultimately, the decision has been made, the RM is closed as "no consensus", and it's time to move on. Continuing to dispute the close or to belittle the experience of the administrators who closed it, is helpful neither to the dispute, nor to the perceptions of your own judgment. For example, it is being noted that in your own contribution history,

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and not to actually contribute, chances are pretty good that eventually you will be asked to leave. --Elonka

11:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know the RfM has been closed and you will note that I have shown support for Colin's suggestions on the talk page. I sincerely believe that the system has failed here and that it needs changing, I am entitled to to express this opinion on WP and I am not alone in this view but I seem to be the only one who dares to speak up at the present. I am not going to argue this case on the 'Tree shaping' talk page but I do intend to pursue it elsewhere, or are you suggesting that civil discussion of the way WP works is now to be suppressed.

You say, 'it is being noted that in your own contribution history, Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs), you seem to be spending nearly all of your time jumping from dispute to dispute'. Perhaps you could first tell me who exactly has noted this and what they think is wrong with that. Where has this discussion taken place, is it in private emails between admins or is it on the wiki somewhere? I would appreciate an answer to that question. The disputes that I have participated in are ones where there has been a RfC, that is a Request for comment. It is a great pity that there are not more editors willing to help out in disputes, there are times my input has been welcomed and has helped resolve the dispute.

Different editors have different ways of contributing to WP and one way I do this is to help resolve conflict by actually trying to understand what the dispute is about and suggesting solutions. If you look at the list of RfCs you will see users begging for some sensible outside opinion. If editors are now to be criticised for participating in RfCs then disputes will become impossible to resolve. Adding information to WP it is important but it is equally important to prevent inaccurate of biased information from being added as this degrades its whole credibility as an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hobgin, Elonka is completely correct here. Not only are you refusing to accept a decision which has already been made, it was not even made by her. I'm not remotely suggesting you go start pestering NW the way you've been pestering Elonka, but you are not accomplishing anything productive here. The RM was extensive, and it was closed - and it was not closed incorrectly. You need to stop beating this dead horse and move on. And for what its worth, when I agree with Elonka, people stop and take pictures, it is so rare. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to accept the decision but I believe that there is a general problem with dispute resolution in WP that needs attention. Where would be the correct forum to discuss this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) You could start an

I am not harassing Elonka I am responding her comments concerning my contribution history, this seems to be attacking me personally for responding to requests for help by others. I am baffled by your call for me to ask 'respectful questions of experienced editors'. I always try to act civilly and respectfully to others that I meet but no one on WP is owed any special respect. Regarding dispute resolution, you have your views and I have mine. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)