User talk:Elonka

thanks for

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

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

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

Just a heads up..

Sorry, I forgot to notify you.. I've taken the whole Domer and VK thing over to ANI, to try to get this settled before it REALLY gets out of hand. [1] is the link :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Award

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

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

Your help?

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

Hi, can you point me at more of the information which makes you think this is the same person? Sorry, I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I just work on a lot of different articles, and don't remember the details of all of them. For example, when you say "the same 67.16x", can you point me at the other IP he was using? Also, is there a sockpuppet investigation page where this information is being gathered? Thanks, --Elonka 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous username was Chao19 (talk · contribs), your and my previous discussions are here and here... he used the IP 67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) previously, and this new IP has just started editing today, and only edited Creed related articles so far... he has removed maintenance templates, and also undid a redirect with the edit summary "Undid revision 325351005 by Adolphus79 (talk) look just becuz u dont like creed doesnt mean you can get rid of the song page.."... the fact that this new IP only started editing today, and has only edited Creed articles to remove maintenance templates, remove AfD templates, and undo one article which was changed to a redirect per WP:NSONGS (I did not make it a redirect), and has already made one stab at me, although not as uncivil as he has been in the past, makes me say that this is obviously Chao19... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles related articles

Elonka, as you appear to be engaged in a "clean-up" of beheaviour on these articles I think, in fairness to the whole Irish editing community you should share your view of what a "troubles-related" article is. Most of us were under the impression that "the troubles" occurred half a century after the Kilmichael Ambush, for example. But you say it is "troubles-related". This is a rather important point if you are enforcing 1RR and the Arbcom ruling with blocks. I'd be concerned that you might interpret the next roads article I edit as "troubles-related"; we can't be too careful. So in order to reassure the Irish editors that your actions are in compliance with the Arbcom ruling we need a clear definition of what you interpret as "troubles-related". Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Attack or explanation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irvine22

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

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

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

Ban violation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violation of probation?

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

I'm not familiar with the details of the ban which Shell Kinney may have imposed. However, if there are concerns that an ArbCom-related ban may have been violated, then the proper venue to bring this up would be at WP:AE. --Elonka 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles discretionary sanctions II

Hi Elonka. I thought your Troubles discretionary sanctions proposal was quite good, and needed to avoid Troubles II. So I've asked at User_talk:Seraphimblade#Troubles whether the community might re-continue that discussion (somewhere?). It probably isnt an "incident" any longer, but the next incident is likely just around the corner. I've also asked for thoughts from Sarah[2]. If you cant find community support, please bring it to arbcom to consider. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Troubles related

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

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

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

The community consensus for it in October 2008 was quite strong,[3] so yes. --Elonka 21:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish Bulletin

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

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

Picture request

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

Admins noticeboard

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

Thumbs up

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

Placing British National Party under 1RR

Sorry Elonka, no way is British National Party a Troubles, or even really an Irish-British relations, related article, warranting this. If the issue you are seeing is bad behaviour on that article between editors who are otherwise associated with editting Troubles related articles, that is an entirely different matter. Please don't embolden those who wish to discredit the entire system [4] with decisions like this, which will only catch people out who have likely never edited a Troubls related article their lives, or worse, will be improperly abused to win content disputes utterly unrelated to anything about the Troubles, such as the current dispute on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to the article because of the recent edit-warring, which appeared to be an overflow dispute with involved editors who routinely edit Troubles-related articles. The article also falls within the proper scope. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies. --Elonka 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)