User talk:Elonka

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Stalking

(moved by User:Ned Scott from User talk:Centauri [1] [2])

(translation): Ned Scott (talk · contribs) and Wknight94 (talk · contribs) (an administrator, no less) have been stalking me today. They've been showing up at my bio [3][4], my mom's bio [5], pages about my company's products [6][7], articles related to a podcast that I appeared on[8], an AfD that I started [9], a stub that I created several months ago [10], the IGDA article [11], and now here (at User_talk:Centauri) too. None of the individual edits was particularly out of line, but as a pattern, they're pretty creepy, and this edit in particular was pretty ballsy: [12]. My guess is that they're following me around because they're upset that I've pointed out their disruptive behavior at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television). But guys, seriously, Wikipedia is a big place, go play somewhere else, eh? --Elonka 03:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalking and looking at your past edits are two different things, as noted by Wikipedia:Wikistalking#Wikistalking: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor."

I was curious about you as an editor and as an individual, and looked at both your edit history as well as your web site. In the process of looking things up my habits as a Wikipedia editor stirred up, unrelated to our dispute. I was not doing any of this to annoy you, harass you, or cause distress. If anything I thought it would better help me understand you as an editor and would likely result in seeing you in a more positive light. There is nothing disruptive about this, and it's perfectly fine. Wikipedians (and most people on the internet) have a tendency to follow links and see where they will take them.

I'm sorry, but it's a little absurd to think that people won't follow links in articles or your web site. You are the one who's chosen to identify with your real name and confirm your identity. On your website, don't you want people to look at links and see stuff you've done? Is it really that strange to you?

Considering these were all valid and rational edits, I don't see what there is to be upset about. I don't see anything mean-spirited or anything intended as harassment.

I'm also a bit bothered that you keep taking this outside of the dispute. I am human, so I will honestly say I am frustrated with you, but I do try my best to separate issues. I don't see why this dispute has to define all of our interactions on Wikipedia. There are a lot of users who I respect and collaborate with who I have had heated debates with in the past. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, your story changes so often, I find it hard to believe anything you say anymore. A couple days ago when I pointed out you were using profanity in edit summaries, you accused me of wikistalking and harassment.[13]. At Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), yesterday you accused me of personal attacks, while at the same time accusing me of being "immature, rude, and disrespectful."[14] Today you're obviously spending time at pages that are related to me, but I don't buy the "just curious" story, considering that all your edits were negative and sniping types of edits, including flat out deleting one by redirecting it without any discussion or attempt at an AfD process [15]. Then you try to defend your actions with a sweetness and light message about just being interested. Please also notice that there's a long list of editors posting to your talk page, pointing out that you have a civility problem. Perhaps you should think about taking a break from Wikipedia for awhile? Or, if you want me to believe the "curiosity" angle, how about making some positive edits to those articles you're so interested in? I'd be happy to give you references for anything you're curious about, and then you could add and fix things to your satisfaction, and we could work together constructively on something. --Elonka 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The verify tags, etc. were determined by me in about 20 minutes of reading pages which were no more than 2 links from your user page - so you needn't bother with the drama of stalking allegations, etc. Please read WP:STALK and WP:DISRUPT before using such language. In particular from WP:STALK:

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.

I'm curious how you view my activity any different than your admission to reading through my RFA for no discernible reason. Furthermore, it's interesting to read this edit where you mention secondary sources only to find so many articles related to you which similarly lack secondary sources. BTW, if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline were viewed as a precedent, some of these unverified or loosely verified articles might be worthy of WP:AFD - but I'll leave that up to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What.. story? I'm sorry, but I don't see where I've changed my mind on anything or changed any story, so I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. I made two edits to articles that are somewhat related to you, and then found myself having to defend two non-controversial minor edits.

One of those edits was a revert to an edit made by Jimbo Wales [16] [17] because the text violated a policy. How on Earth can you get made at me for that? Seriously?

The second edit I don't see as negative at all. Digital DawgPound looked like this, it's about a group that maintains Binary Revolution Radio. I redirected Digital DawgPound to Binary Revolution Radio. The article had no content except for a member list, which didn't seem important. The article had not grown in about a year's time, and the list seemed like trivial information. It's likely a valid search term so an AfD would have been inappropriate. The talk page had one edit, by you, back in June, and didn't seem to be active at all. This seemed like a minor, non-controversial redirect, that in the end will improve the over-all coverage of this group and website by centralizing their information on one article. Not only that, but this group is loosely related to you, and it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for me to use that article to somehow attack or harass you.

That is not harassment, that is not stalking. However, you digging through my edit history in order to write me a direct message like the one you did, that is trolling behavior. There is a big difference there. I didn't write you a message or direct anything towards you. You were not a factor, at all, in those edits. You might have been a factor in me finding those articles, but that's about it.

Do I sound nicer in my messages? Seems an odd thing to get mad at me about. I am going out of my way with my words right now, because you'll yell at me if I say anything slightly or anywhere near what might be considered uncivil. Maybe I was watching my wording too much and came off a bit phony. If so, I'm sorry, but you're over reacting here, and I'm really getting tired of defending myself from absurd accusations. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Elonka, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation says that only the originator should edit the "issues to mediate" section; if you want to restate the issue of WikiProject jurisdiction, please do so in the "Additional issues to mediate" section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the guide correctly, the correct course of action would be for you to move the question from the "Issues to mediate" section to "Additional issues to mediate". I'm loath to edit the latter section myself, since the page says "the initiating party should not edit the "Additional issues to mediate" section under any circumstances". Perhaps I'll ask Essjay or another MedCom member what the correct course of action is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern — however, I think that what's important here is that we get the mediation started, rather than worrying about how the questions are framed. I don't really see a substantial difference of content between the questions "If a wide discussion of Wikipedians opposes a guideline developed by a WikiProject, which takes precedence?" and "Should WikiProjects be allowed to set reasonable guidelines for the articles within their sphere of influence, even if those guidelines are not in strict adherence to Wikipedia-wide guidelines?"; the issue being discussed is the same. I hope an member of the Mediation Committee can sort out the mess at the request page — I'd rather not muddy the waters further myself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, with this edit, I trust you found everyone with multiple posts in the discussion? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good. Because I found Chuq (talk · contribs) who had over two dozen edits to the discussion and yet was left out. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't Josiah Rowe I was curious about. It was your edit declaring "multiple posts" as a criteria that piqued my interest. Finding someone with over 25 posts still missing after that was peculiar to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, is there any particular reason you haven't signed the RfM yet? You've edited the RfM page, but not signed your agreement. Surely your disagreement over the question framing isn't sufficient for you to want to sabotage the mediation? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Whee, it's been a whole, what, three hours since it was proposed, and you're already accusing me of sabotage? Breathe, man, breathe. :) --Elonka 06:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry — I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, and "sabotage" was an infelicitous word choice. I just thought it was odd that you would edit the page but not indicate whether you agree to the mediation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I'm concerned that you have now edited Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) several times but have not agreed to mediation. I fear that this may jeopardize the case's chances of being accepted. I think that if you have concerns about the RfM, it would be best to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) instead of editing the page any more. I also hope that you will agree to the mediation process. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

15 hours. --Elonka 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost episode sources

A question which mixes two of your recent issues, mall articles without secondary sources and Lost episode articles: Why do you find it acceptable that few (if any) Lost episodes have primary sources, let alone secondary sources, while, at the same time, it is so objectionable that malls do not have secondary sources, that you've brought several of them to WP:AFD? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that the Lost episode articles need {{unreferenced}} tags on them at the very least? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no, it would not be proper to add {{unref}} to the many thousands of television episode articles around Wikipedia, since by their very nature, the episode effectively is a reference. I think this has been discussed at the talk page of WP:V, you might want to check there and toss in a question if it's a concern, or maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. --Elonka 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about that since there are still no secondary references. Given that, you may want to reconsider your stance against mall articles which suffer from the same problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm clear on this, are you saying that because you disagree with whether or not I add a {{primarysources}} tag to an article on a shopping mall, that you are considering adding {{unref}} tags to every television episode article on Wikipedia, to make some kind of point? --Elonka 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am saying the two situations are almost identical. Your adding {{primarysources}} to a zillion harmless mall articles - but not to the zillion harmless episode articles - gives the appearance that you are trying to make a point (i.e., you have gone beyond the "consideration" phase). Unless you see some contrast that I'm not seeing, it seems you should be adding the tag to both mall articles and episode articles - or you should be adding to neither. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry if this is inappropriate for me to jump in and comment on what you guys were talking about, but I have a question about the subject matter. Does Wikipedia consider primary and secondary sources to be equally essential? I have no idea. If so, then I sort of see wknight's point (except that I don't think that any of us are really obligated to police everything that we possibly could because of time and interest constraints, and that we shouldn't judge each other for how we choose to focus our efforts, as long as our edits themselves don't violate wikirules). If not, then aren't they totally separate things? Riverbend 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Your Concerns

Hello again, Elonka. I hope you had an enjoyable holiday last week.

I wanted to check with you to make sure that I understand your exact concerns regarding TV:NC so that I do not misrepresent you. This is my understanding of your position:

1. As a general rule, episode articles should not be disambiguated unless necessary.
2. As with any other guideline on Wikipedia, if there is consensus among editors of a particular series (like Lost or Star Trek) that the series qualifies as an exceptional case, then it is appropriate to maintain different naming conventions for that series.
3. The TV:NC guideline page should include a statement acknowledging item #2.

If I am correct, then I think we are much closer to a consensus than people think, because I think there is already a consensus on the first two points. In this case, I intend to make a much bigger stink because I think there are a lot of people who are misunderstanding the issue.

I wanted to check with you, though, because I want to make sure I've got it right. If, for example, you actually disagree with the general guideline, but you are "settling" for the statement about exceptions as a means of compromise, then I want to make sure that your actual concerns are addressed.

So, to sum up, do the three statements above accurately and completely represent your position on the issue? Thanks again. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Elonka; that does help quite a bit. How about this for #2: "If there is a consensus among editors of a particular series (like Lost or Star Trek) that the series should follow a different naming convention, then it is appropriate to maintain a different naming convention for that series." Does that more accurately portray your position? --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Elonka! --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Spellchecking

Just dropping by to say thank you for the copyediting of my spelling errors on various mediation pages; one drawback of being a very rapid typist (about 90wpm) is that my accuracy is shot. Thanks a bunch for checking up on me! Essjay (Talk) 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet it's against our policies. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, keep in mind that there's a difference between editing people's comments, and editing a guideline page. If I see a spelling error in someone's personal comment on a Talk/Discussion page, then I shouldn't change it. But if it's on a policy/guideline page, it's fair game for fixing. --Elonka 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Westfield Groupo

Hi. Let's assume for the moment that The Westfield Group is a notable company - at least it would appear as Starbucks - I would like to get the main TWG article looking more like a WP:CORP FA class article. Do you agree, that in doing this, an important step would be to move the list of locations to List of Westfield shopping centres in ... by nation? I have dropped a proposal on the talk page but no comments there yet.Garrie 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Threatening with blocks

Please do not threaten people with blocks when you have not been authorized to do so. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that I missed your interpretation of Elonka's statement, but I don't believe she actually "threatened" anyone with being blocked. Maybe it is time to take a deep breath and view this in a new light. Thanks for seeing another POV!

Lmcelhiney 13:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your POV and input but five different admins have been involved in that discussion. None of them have mentioned the possibility of blocks and no one else anywhere has mentioned the possibility of blocks to my knowledge (if I have missed a communication somewhere, let me know). If administrators are not mentioning blocks and no one else is either, it is certainly beyond Elonka's authority to mention blocks. Furthermore, even longstanding administrators like Radiant! (talk · contribs) are performing these page moves and her "danger of being blocked" edit could be seen as being directed at all of them. It's inappropriate for a biased individual to use such language with no backing and only against people which do not agree with their bias. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94, I did not threaten anyone with a block, and it is obvious that I do not have the authority to make any blocks. I pointed out that continuing with controversial page moves could lead to a block, as was indicated by the ArbCom proceeding which Thatcher linked. Therefore, it is not a good idea to encourage people to proceed with page moves against consensus. Please stop throwing warning templates at my page every time you disagree with something I do, and please stop stalking my contribs. I've been trying very hard to be patient, and have been bending over backwards to assume good faith, but if you continue with this behavior, I will have no choice but to pursue further action against you. Knock it off. --Elonka 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't help your case at all. First how is anyone to supposed to know your "danger of being blocked" statement is referring to the ArbComm that Thatcher mentioned? Second, there were no blocks resulting from that ArbComm until after people ignored it and continued edit warring - so that analogy is completely flawed. Third, don't bother trying to claim you have consensus for not doing page moves. At best, there was no consensus to modify the TV-NC guideline so it would remain the same. Since moving those pages is in line with the existing guideline, it cannot possibly be considered "against consensus" - let alone be called a blockable action. Even if you had gotten full consensus for the exception verbiage, it was still just for exceptions - so the pages that were not tied to exceptions (i.e. most of them) would still be movable - and certainly not blockable. Fourth, my warning was not a template - it was handwritten. Fifth, I have that RFM on my watchlist (of course) so I'm not "stalking your contribs". Even if I were watching your contribs, I'd be perfectly within my rights per WP:HA.

Bottom line, even if your block mention was not a threat, it sounded like one. Worse yet, there is no substance behind the statement so it sounds like an empty threat. You should know better. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is standard Wikipedia policy per WP:RM, that controversial page moves should not be carried out unless there is consensus for the moves. The guideline page is clearly listed as disputed, and there is much controversy on its talk page, to the point where there's even a note at the top of the talk page cautioning people that it's in "rapid archive" mode, plus a clear notice about an in-process mediation. To say that further moves would be non-controversial, is absurd. --Elonka 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Page moves involving pages under some sort of exception guideline? I would agree (but even then it would be cause to undo the move, not block someone). But that little tag does not mean "no television-related articles in the entire system can be moved". No admin in their right mind would block anyone that moved a television-related article now and I think you know that. Saying otherwise is irresponsible, esp. among so many that have not been here nearly as long as you. You should be setting an example not making threatening-sounding statements that are patently false. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94, your behavior is in clear violation of the policy against Wikipedia:Harassment. You have been following me around Wikipedia, nitpicking my edits, and acting in an uncivil manner. Stop it. --Elonka 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagging for wikify

Hi

I know you're an experienced Wikipedian and do loads of great stuff, including tagging articles without categories, etc. I notice you often add the "wikify" tag too. Often these articles don't need wikifying, especially when they are stubs (recent examples include 49th Military Police Brigade or 7 Shot Screamers In Wonderland to pick two early ones from the list you tagged today.

If you tag them for wikfication they will be added to the wikify backlog, and someone from WikiProject Wikify will have to come & remove the tag again. Even if someone has edited the article to add a category, which appears to be your main suggestion, they often leave the wikify tag. I guess I am requesting that, in order not to waste others' time, you make your tagging a bit more specific, and only add a wikify tag when you feel it's really necessary.

I'd love to hear your views on this. Windymilla 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, which helps me understand the reason. Looking more closely at 49th Military Police Brigade, where the only real wikifying problem was the lack of bolded title, I see the title was fixed by User:Malcolma when they categorised it in response to your tag, but unfortunately they didn't remove the wikify tag. The meaning of the wikify tag is a bit woolly, perhaps leading to a reluctance to remove it, in case others feel it was removed prematurely. Anyway, it's good to exchange views & get an insight into others' work. Thanks, Windymilla 11:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility question

Dear Elonka, I always respected you for your fine-tuned sense of detecting incivility. May I ask you for an opinion on the matters raised at User_talk:Piotrus#Under-the-carpet_maneuvers? Was I offended, or am I overreacting?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have replied to you in private email. --Elonka 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. FYI, your name has been mentioned at User talk:JzG#Trolling? Please explain ANI deletion. You may want to reply there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Straw polls

Dear Elonka,

I'd be happy to take a look at the situation you are referring to and offer some input. You should realize (and probably have realized if you read some of the arbitration discussions), however, that I had some intense disagreements with other editors on particulary the subject of removing other peoples' talk posts. Therefore, I am not a suitable person to ask if you are looking for a neutral "mediator". If you want input (or support, since you apparently have the same dispute with one of those editors), give a link where I can find the discussion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How to avoid contrib stalking

I have WP:RM watchlisted, so I saw your comments there and responded. Just today, I decided to check your contribs to see if you had taken similar action on other pages. As it turned out, you had. I am not in the habit of checking your contribs and I will not make it habit out of courtesy to you. However, I find your actions at WP:RM and WP:POLL to be incredibly unhelpful to the debate at WP:TV-NC, as none of us would be expected to find your posts those pages and be able to provide an opposing point of view. I repeat that I have no intention of stalking your contribs, but this pattern of posting related discussions on unrelated pages is practically an invitation for people to do just that.

I'm not saying that you don't have the right to bring up valid arguments on other pages, but I ask that you post a note at WP:TV-NC when it could impact the debate there. It would go a long way toward building good will and trust. –  Anþony  talk  04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I invite you to pick a representative article and put it up for RM. If the consensus is decided in your favor, I will support a moratorium on the page moves. Also, those moves have been documented at WP:TV-NC, so your analogy is flawed. –  Anþony  talk  04:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM is not a guideline or policy. It is the recommended mechanism for determining consensus support for a move, which is all that is required. There's plenty of evidence that consensus support has been reached (chiefly the Lost RM), though I am fully aware that you disagree. It's ridiculous to demand that every one of these articles should be put up for RM, since the issues involved are essentially the same for all of them. Even a multi-RM would be infeasible, since it is practically impossible to find all the pages beforehand. Regardless, we have strayed far away from my original request, into areas that involve more than just you or me. If you have further comments you'd like to make, I suggest you bring them up on WP:TV-NC. –  Anþony  talk  04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your latest spree

I'm fed up with this, Elonka. I disappear for a week and you embark on yet another spree of deletion attempts, although thankfully this time other people shut you down and told you to get consensus first. You're routinely abusing the speedy deletion criteria to try and get things deleted before anyone else can have oversight, and abusing the prod system to try and slip things through which you know have no consensus support. You were pushing it with the routine arbitrary attempts at AfDing articles without any attempt to determine if they were notable or not on your own (and which, in several cases, you later admitted you didn't want deleted after all). None of this is helping work out what to do with shopping centres - you're simply trying to wear down anyone who disagrees with you.

You've simply crossed the line, however, with the notability tags on David Jones Limited and The Westfield Group - two of the largest corporations in Australia (and in the latter case, globally), as you either well know or could have found out in ten seconds either by reading the articles or doing the slightest, most basic attempt at research via Google. I'm pretty tempted just to take this to arbitration now, citing this as evidence of your repeated violations of WP:POINT, but I'm holding off for the moment on the basis that you seem to have stopped when all your last batch of AfDs were speedy closed and actually started participating in some sort of attempt to reach consensus. That said, I'm fed up with having to constantly keep an eye out for these sorts of stunts - if this sort of disruption is resumed in the future, an arbitration request will be forthcoming. Rebecca 04:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Polling

I was told off-wiki that your latest angle in the TV dispute boils down to prosecuting people who oppose polls. Before you take that line of thought any further, let me remind you who it was that removed that poll against you. (Radiant) 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)