User talk:Elonka

Thanks

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 [1] 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)

Your stewardship of 'Tree shaping'

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. Wikipedia:Discretionary_sanctions specifically refers to uninvolved admins. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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 naming poll? Your lack of participation might imply that you are not interested in a compromise, and this is a concern, since the lack of ability to compromise might be perceived as blocking 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,[2] and again at the close.[3] --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, Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs), you seem to be spending nearly all of your time jumping from dispute to dispute, but never actually working on articles. This kind of behavior is not helpful to the project, so I would encourage you to reconsider how you are spending your time here. If you are just on Wikipedia to argue, especially with a demeanor of 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 Rfc, which could be placed on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion; you could start a thread on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). There may be other venues which would also be appropriate, but that's what I can think of right now. However, you will probably find that "DR is broke!" will net you some support from trolls and generally cement your status as an inveterate WP:IDHT editor, possibly a forum shopper. You may also actually get some productive discussion, but I would not count on it, not with as vague a complaint as you have going in. At least two admins have told you you are in error; and those two admins are not known for agreeing on anything. This should be a clue to you. A more productive approach is to try, very hard, to absorb that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, whereby there are set rules and regulations which govern every minute decision; we trust closing admins to use their judgment. If their judgment is found faulty, it will be overturned and eventually the admin will develop better judgment or lose the admin bit. We do not vote, so counting Supports vs. Opposes will get you nothing but lots of people posting links to Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE in the hopes you will read it and stop citing number of editors for this or that view, which wastes talk space and the time of everyone who has to read past that. You are beginning to get a name as a combative editor who has charged in and wants to re-order how Wikipedia works to suit your ideas; the rest of the community, who have evolved our systems over a good many years, are not generally too impressed with newbies lecturing them on How Things Should Be Done (instead of how everyone else here is doing them.) In short, you don't even know enough about dispute resolution here to be able to discuss your various options, but you think its wrong and want it fixed anyway. Do you see how that is not a very measured approach? I hope you get my points about how you are harming your reputation and cause without also feeling insulted or hurt; my advice is truly meant to help you. I suggest you back down and back off and spend a lot more time reading and asking respectful questions of experienced editors, and a lot less time arrogantly arguing. You may wish to seek a mentor at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. And finally: Your edits to Elonka are now bordering on harassment; how many times does she have to answer the same question before you stop bothering her with exactly the same issues? She's made her view clear. Your three paragraphs[4] of additional complaints - complete with accusations of "suppression", for crying out loud - will not change that. As far as your history, there needs to be no discussion, anyone can look at your contribs and see how you've been editing here. Thank her for her time and be done. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page, but I strongly suggest you let Elonka do something else with her time now. She's spent enough of it on you already, IMO. Of course, Elonka being Elonka, shell probably tell you to keep posting here until hell freezes over, just to disagree with me. (that's supposed to be funny, Elonka. No offense intended.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

Survey

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! SarahStierch (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Why would you move non-admin comments?

Ok, nothing in the "Thread at WP:AN" section states it is only for admins, yet you moved the posts of two editors without their consent to an area far separated from the discussion stating it was because they were "non-admin comments". That is flat out inappropriate. Admins are not supposed to be "super editors", just regular editors with more work to do. If you want the RfM to be closed fine, so do I, but burying other editor's comments is not the way to do it. Remember I did not even vote in this RfM and I am patiently waiting for my proposal to get it's chance on the RfM chopping block. But I still think due-process is important and if it takes more time I'm fine with that, and as a steward of the debate so should you be. Colincbn (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If anything just have someone from ArbCom close it. It was their remedy that the naming debate should be brought to a close quickly, and if this RfM not ending is hindering that it falls under their jurisdiction right? Colincbn (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Colincbn. I moved the comments so that we could have a clear section that showed all the admin comments. You are correct that the section was not specifically marked as "admin only", but as I'm sure you realize, one of the recurring complaints about this dispute is that it frequently turns into "walls of text", so I have opted to keep that section focused on admin commentary. If it causes confusion, I could probably label the section as "administrator discussion" or something, but it is my hope that we can get the RM closed soon, and then it'll all be moot anyway. --Elonka 03:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

for crying out loud, Elonka, he's completely in the right here and you surely know it. Don't go moving non-admin's or IP's edits unless they're commenting somewhere they're specifically not supposed to edit, such as a /Proposed decision page on an ArbCom case. This kind of high-handed behavior is not helpful; surely you have learned this by now??? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the RfM has come off the notice board and very few admins seem willing to get wrapped up in this can we eventually bring it to ArbCom to be closed as an amendment or something? If so how much time would need to pass before it becomes an option? I have been tempted to vote one way or the other just to bring it to a close but since I do not specifically oppose nor support the RfM it would be disingenuous. I sincerely want my proposal to be considered by the group (it has been largely ignored so far), but I don't want to oppose what is essentially an acceptable option just so it will be. Colincbn (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, problem is solved. Colincbn (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Afd Hero 's comments

Please move Afd Hero's title options to the poll section of tree shaping.?oygul (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Brothers->Boys

Why the edit? They are brothers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.168.219 (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of the edit you're talking about. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is Edward E. Kramer. It currently (incorrectly) states that he was charged with molesting three teenage brothers, but to my knowledge, there are no sources which state that. A correct statement would be, "two teenage brothers, and a third boy came forward later". I changed "brothers" to "boys",[5] but the anon has reverted me.[6] As I have a potential WP:COI here (I have met Kramer, have business ties to a business he was involved with about ten years ago, and other reasons), I have no interest in getting into a revert war on the article, so if you (KC) would like to fix it as it's a BLP, be my guest. --Elonka 00:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

?oygul edits Richard Reames Bio !

Recent edits by ?oygul [7] [8] to the bio of a living person need to be scrutinized carefully, spillover from the heated naming debate I think. Slowart (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he is allowed to edit at all is a travesty to the point that I'm thinking about leaving WP entirely. Every time I have to reply to one of his posts it makes me feel all the time I have spent here is just a total waste. Colincbn (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)